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: 6
43
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



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

Don't you get it... if John Stewart, who lick Obama boots for 3 years straight now is pissed at Obama for that, you know it's bad. You don't need to read the bill.

Also a number of congressmen and senators admit it covers American citizens.

Let's explain it again...

Section 1032 :


Section 1032

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
ment
to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

It only says the REQUIREMENT to arrest citizen using the army doesn't apply to US citizens. That means they are not REQUIRED TO every time... but they CAN do it.

I'm telling you, LAWYERS wrote that bill so it would be written weird so most people wouldn't understand it.


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

Yeah just a LITTLE strange uh?


Eh, I don't care, keep denying reality even when congressmen, senators, lawyers, rights activists and former attorney generals tell you it applies to American citizens... it's your choice.
edit on 14-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I wrote my congressman, I'll throw it in an ex-text box for easy viewing:


Representative Simpson:

I am writing you to voice my strong opposition to HR 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act. Specifically, sections 1031 & 1032 cause the gravest of concerns, due to the ambiguously worded inclusion of American citizens as subject to the new "indefinite detainment" powers.
The two sections apply the definition of a covered person (in relation to detention) to any American who commits a belligerent act...an undefined and open-ended offense. The citizen (and legal alien) is unprotected from military detainment, and unprotected from any civilian or contract detainment. Furthermore, the sections do not preclude the transfer of the citizen to foreign countries or entities.

HR 1540 presents a real and unacceptable threat to the American people from broad and overreaching interpretation.

Specifically:

s. 1031(b)(2): ...including any person who has committed a belligerent act...
"Any person" includes Americans, whereas other provisions of s.1031 more specifically target foreign terrorist organizations members and supporters. A belligerent act is also extremely open-ended. Where does that definition start and end, exactly? Who decides what is belligerent?

s. 1031(c)(1): ...Detention under the law of war without trial... The phrase should inspire loathing from any American, terrorism notwithstanding. It is unconstitutional and unamerican on every level.

s. 1031(c)(4): ...Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. This does not exclude Americans from transfer, important in the context of s. 1032:

s. 1032(a)(4)(b)(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.
Americans are not exempt from military custody at all. They are exempt from the requirement of said detainment. The military is not precluded from detaining a citizen should they choose to.
Furthermore civilian and contract custody are not addressed at all, and s.1031(c)(4) does not preclude transfer of citizens in private or civilian custody to foreign countries or 'entities'.

The potential threat that this resolution poses to the American people and their liberty is grave. With all due respect, none of us should trust our government to interpret ambiguous law. Law should be crystal clear in its scope and definition.

If there ever was a moment to stand for something, to pick a side, this is it. Don't quietly vote against this resolution, battle against this bastardized excuse for American law. Tell your constituents what your colleagues are doing; wake the people to this insanity. Don't leave your mark on history as a passive player watching from the sidelines. Stand up and use you voice and protect the people of this state and this nation.

Respectfully,



Feel free to use in part or whole, just get something to your Rep.!



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Don't you get it... if John Stewart, who lick Obama boots for 3 years straight now is pissed at Obama for that, you know it's bad. You don't need to read the bill.


"Don't need to read it"? Is that like the "Health Care" bill they rammed through? Thanks, but I'll base my decisions on what to fear in some sort of factual basis. That requires reading it.




Let's explain it again...

Section 1032 :


Section 1032

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
ment
to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

It only says the REQUIREMENT to arrest citizen using the army doesn't apply to US citizens. That means they are not REQUIRED TO every time... but they CAN do it.


If you say so.
I think you should be very, very afraid. Me, not so much.



I'm telling you, LAWYERS wrote that bill so it would be written weird so most people wouldn't understand it.


Yes, they did. They wrote it very specifically, and will likely be bound by it - as much as they are bound by any law, that is.




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

Yeah just a LITTLE strange uh?



I'm guessing a typo. had it been purposely concealed, it wouldn't have been found, period.



Eh, I don't care, keep denying reality even when congressmen, senators, lawyers, rights activists and former attorney generals tell you it applies to American citizens... it's your choice.


Reality? You go spastic over something that isn't even said, has not occurred, and most likely won't - because it is prohibited, and you want to preach at me about "reality"?

It's not my problem what you want to allow to scare you, but it doesn't mean the sky is also falling in MY world. Be afraid... even VERY afraid... it's your God-given right as an American!

There are other things about this bill to be concerned about, but what people are carrying on about isn't one of them. The groundwork it lays may be a problem in the future, as nearly all laws are, but what it says in the bill itself as written RIGHT NOW, in "reality", isn't at all what people are claiming it is.

What it IS is something to get worked up over early, and burned out on, so that when the real danger comes down the pike, folks won't be looking.

Go ahead. BE afraid. I have to make myself some lunch.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I will put it bluntly: Protesters, Unions that go on strike, ones that are not for the GOV or GOV action/ intervention, or for the war on terror, you have been forewarned. Now that the law is public form, it is just a matter of time before it is law, be careful of what you say or do from now on. OWS you think you had it bad, with LADP and other LEO's, just wait till you see MP face to face, you will be asking for pepper spray instead.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 
60 days form when it becomes law , just in time for the spring time marchers, protesters and such, just in time for when the soldiers home, just in time to say you have been forewarned. My concern was on the words used in 1031 1032 they have not really changed , not that much for it is still up for ones interpretation on "Hostile and belligerent act" or manner, for the way the law is, as it is written now 1031 , the GOV could say the OWS protest actions on the docks on the west coast are in fact giving aid to the terrorist and therefore be subject to 1032, here let me say that again:
the way the law is, as it is written now, 1031 , the GOV could say the OWS protest actions on the docks on the west coast are in fact giving aid to the terrorist and therefore be subject to 1032.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
here is HR 1540 SUBTITLE D, 1031 H.R.1540
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Print - PP)

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

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 pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) 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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such 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 of Public 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). now let read it as one could use it on protesters (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
protesters shutting down docks for the use of shipping is what??Protesting
When supply's to troops are used by privet shipping crop are no longer able to ship because of protesters is what?? Giving aid to terrorist.
This adds up to what?? Protesting... Giving aid to terrorist



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


That's fair enough. I'll consider myself warned, and wait right here for them to get their jackboots on. OWS is itself more dangerous than anything the government has done in the last 50 years, and that's saying something. I think it would be a serious mistake for the government to attack them and force uneasy alliances where now exists only opposition, but it's their mistake to make, I reckon.

If that happens, both will eventually have to be dealt with.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 
agreed, now should we see what laws on the books to see if this is stoppable or should we just let the cards fall, and see how they play out?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by nenothtu
 
agreed, now should we see what laws on the books to see if this is stoppable or should we just let the cards fall, and see how they play out?



I think you should do as your conscience dictates. I can't find anything in it that needs stopping, but if you can, you should follow your conscience.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 
what about the fact that this could be interpreted as a first amendment violation legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... form the link

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, so far all calls and letters to the senate and house have failed 1031 1032 are still in the HR 1540 bill this also jeopardizes the right of the people peaceably to assemble, Hostile and belligerent act do not rule out use of language thus abridging the freedom of speech and jeopardizes the right of freedom of speech. Have they, Congress, gone to far? Should the law be used now to bring charges of "T"? before one starts writing letters and such one must warned for it could come back and bite you big time legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... For using the T act is not going to easy nor is it proved T act legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...



edit on 14-12-2011 by bekod because: editting

edit on 14-12-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2011 by bekod because: added info. and word edit. added link



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Welcome to my world. The government ignored the massive public outcry against the "Health Care" bill, too, and rammed it right on through, against the Will of the people. Many of the same people shaking in their boots now were all for that.

Big government is big government, and it does as it wishes. People aren't thinking straight when they put it in place, then complain about it being there.

I know what I'll do about the "Health Care" bill, and I know what I'll do about this one, too. In neither case is it anything to get scared about, although both are annoying if you elect to pay attention to them.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

15e.) Recruitment/Solicitation:
i) You will not use your membership in the Websites for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever. You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to disseminate advertisements, chain letters, petitions, pyramid schemes, or any kind of solicitation for political action, social action, letter campaigns, or related online and/or offline coordinated actions of any kind.

Terms and Conditions of Use

Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join