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: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
here is the HR 1540 wording on SEC D

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or(B) have engaged in hostilities or have, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and(4) the President’s authority pursuant tosuch enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII ofPublic Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(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.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
seems to be the same??




posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by lazydaisy67
I e-mailed my Rep. Steve King from Iowa. Said to vote NO and that it was unconstitutional and if passed was an act of treason against the American public. Doubt I will get a response, but I had to enter my name, address, and phone number which may prove to be a bad thing if this bill passes. I would probably be put on the "terrorist" list and taken to a FEMA camp to be held indefinitely.

When will we find out the final outcome of all of this? Have to know if I need to pack or not.


I imagine you won't be at camp FEMA alone. Gonna be alot of people there, including me....



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
...

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or(B) have engaged in hostilities or have, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and(4) the President’s authority pursuant tosuch enemy forces.



So, does this mean the widowed and single granmothers who are shopping for Holiday Meals for huge family gatherings won't be arrested now for having more than 7 days worth of food?

Or better yet, does this mean the CIA and Bushes et all will be arrested? Since H W Bush was CIA director when they decided to PAY and train Al Qaeda out of the mujahajeen (spelling)? How about those who PAID the Pakistani ISI to funnel the payment to AL Qaeda and even the payment to the ringleader of 911? Oh and this pile of pooh gets deeper and deeper.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I hope I'm not reading this right, looks like it passed by a WIDE margin. www.govtrack.us...



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Where exactly is this language and where in the bill does it say American citizens lose their citizenship if they act belligerent? It says in Sec. 1032(b) that this bill does not include United States Citizens, right after Sec. 1031.

If you can find some amendment or addition to the laws that define how one can lose citizenship, and "acting belligerent" is in there, I will gladly change my position.

The bill is in the Library of Congress records, free and available to anyone online. The link is posted in the OP and in my first post.
edit on 12/13/2011 by Lifthrasir because: Saw that someone else actually posted a primary source rather than a secondary source.

edit on 12/13/2011 by Lifthrasir because: Reply to the wrong username?



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverado292
 


I think this version didn't pass the senate or something. But the real senate-house bill is due to be voted on tomorrow in the house/senate, at the latest it will be on Obama's desk on thursday/friday.

Wouldn't surprise me if Obama signs it on Friday night.

Ron Paul: Defense Bill Establishes Martial Law In America

Top tier presidential candidate Ron Paul has decried the ‘indefinite detention’ provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, warning that it represents an arrogant, bold and dangerous attempt to establish martial law in America.

Paul said he saw significance in “the announcement and the arrogance of it all,” making reference to the Obama administration’s claim that it can now assassinate American citizens anywhere in the world and noting that the passage of the NDAA bill is an effort to codify the policy into law.

“This is a giant step – this should be the biggest news going right now – literally legalizing martial law,” said Paul, noting that the subject did not come up at all in any of the Republican debates.

“This is big,” emphasized Paul, adding “This step where they can literally arrest American citizens and put them away without trial….is arrogant and bold and dangerous.”

“The conferees said they plan to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote as soon as Wednesday afternoon and to the Senate soon thereafter,” reports Politico.

edit on 13-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Oh alright, I thought they were voting on it today so when I saw that I ASSumed. Although to be honest I'm not going to be surprised when it sails through CONgress, angry yes but not surprised.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
(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.


It's even here, in Section 1031, which you posted. Here, it implies that the Constitution's efficacy is not affected by this law, as is also stated in Section 1032(b)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Trexter Ziam
 
Technically Speaking; Yes it can, will it be used as a way to make them pay?? Not!!! No one would bother to file the charges



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lifthrasir

Originally posted by bekod
(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.


It's even here, in Section 1031, which you posted. Here, it implies that the Constitution's efficacy is not affected by this law, as is also stated in Section 1032(b)

This is all lawyer talk. It affects US citizens, period.

Everyone says it. Congressmen, senators who wrote the bill, lawyers, constitutional scholars, everyone.

Anyways here how I understand it...

It allows the military


(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.


to detain people under section B :


(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or(B) have engaged in hostilities or have, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and(4) the President’s authority pursuant tosuch enemy forces.

Any terrorist/supporter of terrorism.

And you can do that with them :

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII ofPublic Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Unlimited detention without trial.


(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.

That means that they say it doesn't change existing laws on ALL ARRESTS... things like carjacking, etc... but if you are arrested as a ``terrorist under the law of war`` then you can be arrested by the military and held forever without trial.

It means that it doesn't affect non-terrorist related laws.
edit on 13-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 
even the law knows this case in point www.fff.org...

Jose Padilla and the Military Commissions Act
by Jacob G. Hornberger, October 18, 2006

Anyone who hoped that U.S. military detention of Americans accused of terrorism expired with the transfer of American citizen Jose Padilla from military custody to Justice Department custody have seen their hopes dashed by the Military Commissions Act that the president signed into law yesterday. Although the act limits to foreign citizens the use of military tribunals and the denial of habeas corpus, any person, including American citizens, can still be labeled and treated as an “unlawful enemy combatant” in the war on terrorism.

What does that mean for the American people? It means the same thing it did for Jose Padilla. You’ll recall that Padilla was arrested in Chicago for terrorism and transferred to military custody, where, according to Padilla, he was tortured and involuntarily injected with drugs.

The government’s position is that since the entire world is a battlefield in which the war on terrorism is being waged, U.S. officials now have the power to arrest any American suspected of terrorism, place him in military custody, and subject him to the same “unlawful enemy combatant” treatment that Padilla received, until the war on terrorism has finally been won, no matter how long that takes.

You’ll recall that the government’s position was that Padilla, as an “unlawful enemy combatant” suspected of having committed terrorist acts, was not entitled to the procedural rights guaranteed to criminal defendants in the Bill of Rights, including the rights to counsel, due process, and trial by jury.

The district court ruled in favor of Padilla at his habeas corpus hearing, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, upholding the government’s “unlawful enemy combatant” argument for Padilla and, by implication, all other Americans.

Before the Supreme Court could rule on Padilla’s appeal from the Second Circuit’s decision, the government announced that it wished to transfer him from military control to federal-court control on the basis of a grand jury indictment charging him with terrorism. The Supreme Court permitted the transfer and declined to hear Padilla’s appeal because the case was now “moot,” given that Padilla was no longer being held by the military but instead was being held by the Justice Department as a criminal defendant. That left the Second Circuit decision upholding the “unlawful enemy combatant” designation intact.
now what be came of this? from the link

Even if Padilla is acquitted in the federal-court action, there is little doubt that the Pentagon will immediately take him back into military custody as an “unlawful enemy combatant” in the war on terrorism, requiring Padilla to once again embark, in a habeas corpus proceeding, on a long legal journey to the Supreme Court.

Currently, under the Second Circuit’s decision in Padilla, and now also under the Military Commissions Act, the president has the power to order the military arrest and incarcerate any number of Americans suspected of terrorism. Americans would still have the right to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court because the Military Commissions Act cancelled that right only for foreigners, not Americans. Keep in mind, however, that a habeas corpus hearing is not a full-blown trial to determine guilt or innocence but is simply designed to determine whether the government has legal justification for holding a prisoner. All the government would have to do at the habeas corpus hearings is provide some evidence that the Americans it is holding in military custody have engaged in some act of terrorism and then cite the Second Circuit opinion and the Military Commissions Act in support of its power to continue detaining them.

Of course, the cases would ultimately go to the Supreme Court, but that would inevitably entail a lengthy delay, a period of time during which lots of Americans could be tortured, abused, and even “accidentally” killed, just as foreign “unlawful enemy combatants” in U.S. military custody have been. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will rule against the government.

How does an American who is labeled an enemy combatant ultimately get tried? Answer: he doesn’t. Under the Military Commissions Act, trial by military tribunal is limited to foreigners. So, even though Americans still have the use of habeas corpus (so far) to test whether their detention is lawful, if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the “unlawful enemy combatant” designation for people accused of terrorism, Americans will be returned to indefinite military custody as “unlawful enemy combatants” if the government has provided some evidence of terrorism at the habeas corpus hearing.

The irony



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 
continued the Irony is www.fff.org...

The irony is that while foreigners will be accorded the kangaroo tribunal treatment, Americans accused of terrorism will continue to languish in military prison indefinitely without the benefit of a trial. Of course, given that the tribunals will have the power to impose the death penalty, Americans might do well not to complain about their indefinite detention.
note this is from 2006 so you think your still not detain able because your a US citizen , and then they do not need real tangible proof just 2 say so's.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
If you think this can not happen to you on just say so or here say think again BTW the law has not changed www.nndb.com... just to open your eyes

AKA José Padilla

Born: 18-Oct-1970
Birthplace: Brooklyn, NY

Gender: Male
Religion: Muslim
Race or Ethnicity: Hispanic
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Terrorist

Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Alleged Terrorist
so what was the out come?

In September 2005, the US Court of Appeals reiterated that the President can order citizens held without trial -- but two months later, apparently to avoid an appeal to the Supreme Court, the government finally pressed charges against Padilla. He was convicted of conspiracy, and giving material support to terrorists. Serious allegations to be sure -- each charge carries a maximum penalty of fifteen years in prison -- but these are nowhere near the horrific crimes Ashcroft told Americans Padilla was guilty of. The court case heard no claims of 'dirty bombs', or of attacks being plotted in or against America.
was he a goody goody to shoe? No not by any means, as a citizen did he deserve this?no Habeas Corpus no right to an Attorney and no right to attorney client privilege, held 3 years with nothing more that here say still think your safe? you have the right to file Habeas Corpus, but,

All the government would have to do at the habeas corpus hearings is provide some evidence that the Americans it is holding in military custody have engaged in some act of terrorism and then cite the Second Circuit opinion and the Military Commissions Act in support of its power to continue detaining them.
now do you see??
edit on 13-12-2011 by bekod because: editting



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
man they really want war

#ing pathetic



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Translation of Legalese:

2) A person who: A) was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners (this is basically Known enemies, OR terrorists);


OR... (NOTE THAT THE LOGICAL OPERATOR IS OR, NOT AND!!!!!!) B) have engaged in hostilities (Hostilities= any act that causes loss of life or injury, or is otherwise disruptive to the US government, It's economy, or social order: READ: Occupy protesters could be covered...)

OR have, including any person who has committed a belligerent act. (Websters: Belligerent, waging war; specifically : belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war OR inclined to or exhibiting ASSERTIVENESS, hostility, or combativeness. ANYONE WHO PROTESTS ASSERTIVELY, civil disobedience, direct action, etc can be detained indefinitely for what amounts to a Disorderly Conduct ticket!)

OR has directly supported such hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and(4) the President’s authority pursuant to such enemy forces. (Anyone the president says is an enemy as stated...)

I hope our president vetoes this bill. If not Alex Jones, as paranoid as he is, was right... God Help Us.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


According to section 1032 (a)(2) (a) and (b), it can't be applied to anyone outside of AQ or the Taliban. Since I don't hang out with people who are, I reckon I'll have to find something else to be pissed at Obama over for the day. I'm leaning towards his threat to shut down the government if he doesn't get his way, but really I can't even get excited about that - I'm not real happy with the government these days, and I'm not sure a shutdown would be a BAD thing. What a dismal day when I can't find anything to get worked up over!

Thanks all the same.

I got that information from the bill itself H.R,1540.PP, at this link. It looks like section 1031 has been stripped from it (odd how it continues to reference Sec. 1031, which section is now missing from the bill - stupid bureaucrats!). The specific section I cited above is:



H.R.1540
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Print - PP)

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of 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 section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement 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.



Link to that Section

Honestly, the way this thing is written and butchered up, if anyone votes either for OR against it - if they vote on it AT ALL - I will have to wonder who ties their shoes for them in the mornings so they can go to work. I cannot even imagine being afraid of people displaying this degree of ineptitude.




edit on 2011/12/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


it can't be applied to anyone outside of AQ or the Taliban. Since I don't hang out with people who are, I reckon I'll have to find something else to be pissed at Obama over for the day.

Well that's not right. It applies to everyone who's defined as a ``terrorist``. Protesting is terrorism according to them.

Even John Stewart is bashing Obama on this.

If you are in the US :
Watch it here

It applies to American citizen, PERIOD.

And section 1031 is still there in the link you posted..
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
edit on 13-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by lazydaisy67
I e-mailed my Rep. Steve King from Iowa. Said to vote NO and that it was unconstitutional and if passed was an act of treason against the American public. Doubt I will get a response, but I had to enter my name, address, and phone number which may prove to be a bad thing if this bill passes. I would probably be put on the "terrorist" list and taken to a FEMA camp to be held indefinitely.

When will we find out the final outcome of all of this? Have to know if I need to pack or not.


I imagine you won't be at camp FEMA alone. Gonna be alot of people there, including me....


I don't understand.

Regardless of the scenario, or the validity or invalidity of this claim, WHY would anyone allow the government to put them into a FEMA camp alive?

I do not understand that.

make 'em use the alleged coffins. Take some of them with you if they ever come.

The meek may inherit the Earth, but the defiant will at least get a plot of it. The results will be the same in the end, whether you go along with the program or defy it. NO ONE gets out of this life alive, so why live it on your knees? Either way we are ALL going to go out some day - Go out a free man!



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by nenothtu
 


it can't be applied to anyone outside of AQ or the Taliban. Since I don't hang out with people who are, I reckon I'll have to find something else to be pissed at Obama over for the day.

Well that's not right. It applies to everyone who's defined as a ``terrorist``. Protesting is terrorism according to them.


Not according to the way the bill is written.



Even John Stewart is bashing Obama on this.


I'm not a big fan of John Stewart, but he's entitled to his apparently fear-laden opinion.



It applies to American citizen, PERIOD.


Not the way the bill is written. There are definite qualifiers.



And section 1031 is still there in the link you posted..
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
edit on 13-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



How odd. Where did you get that from? The bill index as it shows up here is this:



Subtitle C ends with Section 1026, and Subtitle D begins with Section 1032. I searched the page several times for the string "1031" and came up empty each time.

Never mind - I tinkered with it and found where it is - it's just not listed in the index. That by itself seems a little strange, but reading this version of 1031, I still can't find anything objectionable in it, either. I'm not a big fan of AQ, the Taliban, or their allies, and can't say that it upsets me that they are the subjects of this, as is plainly stated in both 1031 and 1032.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by lazydaisy67
I e-mailed my Rep. Steve King from Iowa. Said to vote NO and that it was unconstitutional and if passed was an act of treason against the American public. Doubt I will get a response, but I had to enter my name, address, and phone number which may prove to be a bad thing if this bill passes. I would probably be put on the "terrorist" list and taken to a FEMA camp to be held indefinitely.

When will we find out the final outcome of all of this? Have to know if I need to pack or not.


I imagine you won't be at camp FEMA alone. Gonna be alot of people there, including me....


I don't understand.

Regardless of the scenario, or the validity or invalidity of this claim, WHY would anyone allow the government to put them into a FEMA camp alive?

I do not understand that.

make 'em use the alleged coffins. Take some of them with you if they ever come.

The meek may inherit the Earth, but the defiant will at least get a plot of it. The results will be the same in the end, whether you go along with the program or defy it. NO ONE gets out of this life alive, so why live it on your knees? Either way we are ALL going to go out some day - Go out a free man!




Lol yeah i hear ya. If its one thing i learned in my years on this prison rock, it's that there's no such thing as freedom. Were all slaves to something. I guess you could say Jesus pulled the scales off my eyes and showed me that the only way we can truly be free is to die in him and in most cases it is the only way out of this prison. If youre not holy enough like Jesus, Enoch or Elijah, the only way youre leaving this planet is through death.

Were about to bite the big one though for real and people don;t even se eit coming and no matter how hard some of us try to wrn them they scoff and remain oblivious. Not to much longer anyone that claims to be religious is going to get purged. This so called terrorist bill is designed to weed out the zealots from the weak minded who can be cowed and controlled.

I can be defiant without killing anyone. I'm a man of God and a man of peace, taking a life has never been my way and it never will be.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join