NDAA/S.1867 passes the house

page: 6
122
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
we need to band together. The gloves will comes off when they have to. We're the most armed society in the world.




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by dennis86
 


Nice video. Now can you show that to me in the bill?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Unless TPTB have some Terminator style robotic soldiers they're going to unleash, I simply dont believe it will ever come down to an American Revolution style overhaul.

The govt is far too sophisticated to actually force police and our own troops to attack american civilians. Sure, its already been happening here and there in small instances, usually related to reckless protesters who refuse to act civilized.

With all these troops leaving the middle east and coming home, I'd say if it came down to an actual physical battle TPTB would be shaking in their bunkers. I personally know many soldiers, and although they have and will kill for Uncle Sam, they took an oath to defend the American people and our rights and liberties. They would side with the people.

The whole world is falling apart. There are riots and protests everywhere. Economies collapsing, whole countries going bankrupt. Anti govt sentiments and general public discontent is spreading like wildfire. I'd predict that those who tried to warn us might have been right....

Something god awful is about to take place, and it will be engineered to look either natural, extra-terrestrial, or terrorist related, and it will bring everyone to their knees begging our governments to all band together to form one world govt and gladly sign away the last of our rights.
edit on 15-12-2011 by WhiteDevil013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorKarma
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


I do in fact NOT AGREE with you and consider you an example of one of the brainwashed.

Let me ask you a question Mister, what is the difference between a lone bomber killing innocent people and a government's military killing innocent people.

You are not just on a slippery slope, you're in a full blown slide.



To answer your question forthrightly and honestly, while you are still in a highly emotional stage,

the difference lays in WHEN it is happening.

Had the military killed INNOCENT americans? But i certainly do see MANY single lone bombers killing innocents, by the thousands.

Labelling me will get you nowhere, for I am only an insignificant nobody. Only the TRUTH and REALITY will get not only you somewhere, but your loved ones as well.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Any chance of another American revolution, even if completely peaceful, just died. Your shining city on the hill just had its electricity completely cut. Now there is just darkness. This is devastating.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
What a surprise, the Republican controlled House passed a bill eliminating our rights, and you people refuse to connect the dots. How can you continue to be brain washed.

Who is opposing what this bill will do?

www.thenewamerican.com...


Forty members of Congress have sent a letter urging the House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders to protest provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that would legalize the indefinite detention of American citizens.

The letter states,

The Senate-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens’ right to trial. We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military.

While the letter is comprised of Democrat signatures, it summarizes the concerns advanced by key Republicans such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Justin Amash


At what point do you people wake up to the reality that Republicans want to build a police state controlled by ICBers? Face it, the Republicans have no respect for the U.S. Constitution or representative government.

edit on 15-12-2011 by poet1b because: typo



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Let's all calm down. What's all the fear for?

The right to freedom of expression had NOT be curtailed. Peaceful protests, demostrations had not be withheld.

But the right to violent expression upon innocents is now a heinous crime against humanity, regardless of foreigner or american, and rightly so.

IF and WHEN a gov decides to use violence or tyranny upon citizens, then and only then will violence be used by the masses, for that sacred Constitution, a social contract, had been broken, as is happening in Syria and Libya and a bunch of other failed states around the world.

Until then, a terorist is still defined as a dangerous and armed individual hell bent on murdering innocents. If you are a peaceful protestor seeking for social change, you certainly dont fall into that category, one that no one can consciably label you as, unless you wish to upgrade that status from peaceful to violence, when NO violence had been issued against you nor called for.
edit on 15-12-2011 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Only....the president has the ability to veto it and will not. The president is Democrat. Realize that BOTH parties are set to make this a police state, to only see one side of it is the very definition of blind partisanship. Oh btw I can be considered leftist, but refused to abide by brainwashing labels that serve to divde.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


You are either woefully gullible or an outright agent. You have no idea what you are talking about, nor do you realize what the passing of this bill really means. I suggest you read up on authoritarian governments of the past and see the parallels. You are the exact type of uninformed citizen that the government is counting on.
edit on 15-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The Senate is controlled by the democrats, look at who voted yes, its both sides, and the president is a democrat,



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


I don't know where you get your information, but the Obama admin opposes the language in the bill that allows the arrest of U.S. citizens without a trial.


The White House reportedly has threatened a presidential veto of the bill because of the detention language. However, Senator Levin said that Obama Administration had asked for language to be removed from the bill “expressly precluding ‘the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States.’ ” On December 1, the Senate voted down (61 to 37) an amendment by Diane Feinstein (D-California) that would have stripped the troubling provision from S. 1867.


Read more:indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com... indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com...

And another article stating Obama opposition to the language that allows arrest of U.S. citizens without trial.

www.google.com...


The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The Obama administration also opposes that change.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


STOP NDAA - When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to supper, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by geryon
 


The democrats only voted on a preliminary bill, they have yet to vote on the final bill, and the democrats are the ones leading the opposition to that portion of the bill.

www.lawfareblog.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Great, so now the logical operator is and/or by cleaver wording..

(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, (AND/OR implied by comma) including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

We are truly hosed until they remove belligerent and replace it with an "act of warfare" "act of terrorism" or similar wording. Anyone protesting "assertively" AKA "direct action" can be detained indefinitely, by either civilian or military forces. They could say that the "occupy" protesters were belligerent, and be detained for what amounts to Disorderly Conduct. If the president signs this bill into law it may be time to pack up and move, or prepare to survive a civil war.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Thank goodness my guy has a good head on his shoulders. My congressman voted NAY!!!! I had let him know via e-mail if he supported this abuse of my civil rights I would campaign to see he was not re-elected. I may rejoice that my representative defended my constitutional rights but I am devastated that this passed. This is bad news. We need to have this repealed.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


I don't know where you get your information, but the Obama admin opposes the language in the bill that allows the arrest of U.S. citizens without a trial.


The White House reportedly has threatened a presidential veto of the bill because of the detention language. However, Senator Levin said that Obama Administration had asked for language to be removed from the bill “expressly precluding ‘the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States.’ ” On December 1, the Senate voted down (61 to 37) an amendment by Diane Feinstein (D-California) that would have stripped the troubling provision from S. 1867.


Read more:indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com... indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com...

And another article stating Obama opposition to the language that allows arrest of U.S. citizens without trial.

www.google.com...


The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The Obama administration also opposes that change.






You posted a google link that is 5 days old along with indiancountrytoday links. Here's a more current take on current events

www.huffingtonpost.com...




The White House on Wednesday abandoned its threat to veto a defense bill that sets in stone the commander in chief's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including Americans, in military custody



But numerous legal authorities have pointed out to The Huffington Post that, even though that provision does not require the detention of Americans, it also does not say they cannot be detained. And the legislation's definition of terrorism suspects does not exclude Americans, which means the military is authorized to detain Americans. An amendment that would have barred detentions of U.S. citizens failed in the Senate. The decision on whether an American goes to the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility -- which must remain open to accommodate new suspects -- will lie with the White House.


This is after the proposed changes.



There is also a yahoo article that came out today that pretty much says the same thing.
edit on 15-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by eywadevotee
Great, so now the logical operator is and/or by cleaver wording..

(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, (AND/OR implied by comma) including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

We are truly hosed until they remove belligerent and replace it with an "act of warfare" "act of terrorism" or similar wording. Anyone protesting "assertively" AKA "direct action" can be detained indefinitely, by either civilian or military forces.

Only if they committed that direct action in support of "such enemy forces," i.e. AQ, the Taliban, and their affiliates.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by eywadevotee
Great, so now the logical operator is and/or by cleaver wording..

(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, (AND/OR implied by comma) including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

We are truly hosed until they remove belligerent and replace it with an "act of warfare" "act of terrorism" or similar wording. Anyone protesting "assertively" AKA "direct action" can be detained indefinitely, by either civilian or military forces. They could say that the "occupy" protesters were belligerent, and be detained for what amounts to Disorderly Conduct. If the president signs this bill into law it may be time to pack up and move, or prepare to survive a civil war.


You think thats disturbing, check this out - DHS Article about Terrorists and when your finished reading that head on over to the actual leaked MEMO from DHS List and Definitions of Potential Domestic Terrorists

Here's some scary excerpts:


(U) alternative media (U//FOUO) A term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.

That means every one of us on this Forum.


(U) animal rights extreemism (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who ascribe equal value to all living organisms and seek to end the perceived abuse and suffering of animals. They believe animals are sentient creatures that experience emotional, physical, and mental awareness and deserve many of the same rights as human beings; for example, the right to life and freedom to engage in normal, instinctive animal behavior. These groups have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an
attempt to advance their extremist goals. They have targeted industries, businesses, and government entities that they perceive abuse or exploit animals, including those that use animals for testing, human services, food production, or consumption.
(also: animal liberation)



(U) decentralized terrorist movement (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who pursue shared ideological goals through tactics of leaderless resistance independent of any larger terrorist organization.

Can you say OWS Movement?

etc etc etc. People need to wake up and SEE what our Government is doing to us! The stage is set.
The Patriot Act allowed them to spy on us without a Warrant. Now they can gather evidence against us (possibly even fabricate it) without a Judges permission and/or probable cause.

Without NDAA they would still be forced to present that said evidence in court and PROVE it was true.
With NDAA they can just detain you indefinately, without cause, or charge, and deny you your "right" to trial.
All based on these definitions and the "evidence" they didn't even need probable cause to obtain, and which does NOT have to be held up to any standard of scrutinization.

Take this # seriously people!
edit on 15-12-2011 by zeeon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Amen ..
I'm glad you are bringing light to this.We are constantly fighting
over this subject on ATS. Its all those "lovers of freedom" in the
Tea party and Republican party that are the biggest traitors.
Way to pay attention for all those that voted them in.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


You left their leader off the list. Let me help you by adding him.... Barrak Obama





new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join