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.

 

To the Military:The Bill of Rights is Still The Highest Law of the Land.

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I am posting this because of the recent bill which authorized the detainment of US civilians...To those who are serving in our military please remember your oaths, to protect the Constitution, and adhere to the UCMJ. And protect American lives from tyranny, be it foreign or domestic.

I am not asking you to overthrow the US government, but protect and preserve our Freedoms and Liberty which have brought this country to it's precipice, and hopefully not it's pinnacle.

Folks connecting the dots on this one isn't very difficult, America may see a future where active attacks within our country from exterior and interior forces may envoke a military response if deemed under the Bill, which would be legit under the proposed acts to the NDAA, would that be correct?


The oath you have taken upon enlistment:


NAME, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


The Uniform Code of Military justice makes it very clear:


The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.


Here is the supremacy clause as stated:



"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2


What is happening is a complete usurpation of authority, and illegally authorizes the US government to act against civilians. Let's hope that when the time arrives when this Bill will be used actively upon the US, that our military personnel remember there oaths, and protect civilians.

Source


edit on 14-12-2011 by Daedal because: Edit




posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
-Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

edit on 14-12-2011 by METACOMET because: up



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
That Bill of Rights does not limit itself to United States citizen's alone. In fact, when the Bill of Rights were written there was not even such a thing as "United States citizens", only citizens of the several states. However, the Bill of Rights makes no distinction, other than "people", when prohibiting the federal government from trampling over specified rights - and given the Ninth Amendment, non-specified rights as well - of the People.

That U.S. military personnel have all ready agreed to enforce unlawful detentions, justifying it with the notion that those detained as "enemy combatants" were not citizens and even then American citizens were indeed being unlawfully detained. There is much ballyhoo about how the U.S. military soldiers will side with the "People" when push comes to shove, and I have no doubt that some will. Others, on the other hand, have all ready effectively demonstrated that they will not side with the "People" and will gladly follow unlawful orders and do whatever it is they're told to do.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Im in the Marine Corps, I am constantly reminding my fellow marines that we made an oath to protect and defend the constitution, not blindly follow orders regardless of moral standards.

The day I am told to police the american people, is the day i go UA (AWOL for you older folks).



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
there's only one problem. it's the supreme court that rules if a law is unconstitutional.

if it passes, then it's not unconstitutional and lawful.

there fore it is the duty of military personnel to follow it. even it means detaining citizens.

the only choice is a military coup. which is unconstitutional.

the system covers it's tracks.

the soldier still has a choice. it's called a conscience and righteousness.


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



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 




there's only one problem. it's the supreme court that rules if a law is unconstitutional.


The Supreme Court makes the final decision for Government regulation over whether a specific law is constitutional and can be enforced. It does not however make the final decision on whether or not a law is specifically Unconstitutional .. that is for the People to decide.. It's a philosophical difference that no institution of any kind can regulate or dictate on God Given Rights. This law blatantly defiles the 6th amendment.. nothing a self righteous judge says or does will change that.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Hey Jean Paul, we sparred over this in the past. My angle at the time was "Enemy Combatants", Traitors,
Spies and Conspirators against The United States of America. You strongly opposed my arguement.
It is clear to me now however, that this new Legislation (at least my 2nd hand interpretation of it) is not
only Unconstitutional, but is a direct attack upon The Writ of Habeus Corpus and the Civilized World.

Could you, or any of our fellow members here for that matter, provide a link to The Actual
Legislation Proposed? It would validate the argument for all sides if the Act could be read by all.

I am happy to see you that you are still an active contributing member here, and look forward to
sparring with you again. Best, Wildmanimal



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Well Said,

and Duly Noted.

Third Line



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Plain and simple, folks, If the Supreme Court Justices decide this civil detainment and suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Justices would then be guilty of High Treason, along with anyone in power who signed the bill. This is Law, people not statute, or ordnance. I fear if this happens, Civil War will break out, and we will see blood in America's streets once again. My, how history seems to repeat itself!



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildmanimal
 


Hello my friend, it is good to see you.

I did a cursory look, but I suspect that there will be little in regards to actual language until - or if - the legislation is actually passed. I will keep looking in the meantime.

In regards to peoples rights, the O.P. listed the Sixth Amendment as part of the Supreme Law of the Land. Of course, one could argue that this in regards to those "accused" by the government, and the unlawful detentions happening now are people who have not been accused of anything, but that would just be a silly game of semantics.

Every person, regardless of the crime, has the right to know the charges against him, to a speedy trial, and to confront his accusers. It is an absolute and universal law that applies to all people, and if it is the United States government bringing the charges, the United States is required by Constitution to respect the rights of those people they are imprisoning.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Most military won't touch American Citizens on American soil.
When they stand up, LEO's will follow suit.

Keep in mind US citizens have guns.
The best of the best of the best.. are not under Government employ, they are in the private sector justv like you and I .. because the money is 20 times better.
The Military spends money on equipment and bulk training.. not soldiers paychecks.


The best and brightest of the men and women serving today are smart enough not to touch a US citizen on US soil.
Ive worked with guys that even amaze me with their tactical experience, knowledge and skillset...all today, work in the private security sector...and they ALL think for themselves.
The myth of the mindless supersoldier is just that... if they are elite, they are extremely intelligent as well and think for themselves.



TPTB may have the latest toys, but they would be forced to use their second or third string.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Apparently this not only involves the department of defense, but also authorizes the budget authority of the department of energies national security programs..

Any idea what those may be?

Source

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 is comprehensive legislation which authorizes the budget authority of the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.


Why would these programs go live unless there was a national security threat already known?
edit on 14-12-2011 by Daedal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 



there's only one problem. it's the supreme court that rules if a law is unconstitutional.

Yeah and people with black skin is only 3/5 of people with white skin right?

The Supreme court is corrupt to the bone, just like the federal government. If they decide against the constitution, you ignore them.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by BadNinja68
 




Most military won't touch American Citizens on American soil.


Yes they will. The Civil War proved that much.. as did the New York Draft Riots.. and several incidents in the 1960's..



When they stand up, LEO's will follow suit.


Um .. LEO's arrest US Citizens on bs laws every day, evict people from their homes, beat civilians, shoot civilians, the list of crimes goes on and on.

Federal authorities are even worse..



Keep in mind US citizens have guns.


For now.. but I believe most will give them up. After Katrina authorities disarmed lawful citizens for no reason and all of them rolled over and let the authorities rape their rights.

I simply don't put much faith in Government employees.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BadNinja68


Keep in mind US citizens have guns.


Let us say that they do keep that in mind...well armed, trained military would kick a$$.

There may be a few thousand who play war during the weekend...and there may be individuals who own a lot of guns...but then consider the majority who own guns just for protection...the ones who just learned to shoot to protect themselves...do you think they would be any match for the military...or how much guns do you think the average survivalist can shoot at once.....one to shoot properly...two to just to shoot.

They say there about 200 million guns in America...now consider the fact that there are people out there who own more than one weapon...maybe five or more...that cuts that figure down a lot...now the people who own the weapons strictly for protection which i believe are the majority....basically the military really have nothing to worry about.

Take out the survivalists(militias) first...maybe a few thousand or so..which would be a simple task for the military then the public would be easy pickings...because the majority would not be ready for action.

Remember this military would ready for this..they would know the land, the people and which target to take out first. The last civil war is not something to compare your chances to...because you basically had access to the same weapons...this one would different...slaughter....better weapons, better trained...so those of you who say they would dare not...just keep lying to yourselves.


These are the people that this bill is talking about...Extremism in America

Not to mention the people out to destroy America..Al-Qaeda and others
edit on 14-12-2011 by kerazeesicko because: CUZ I CAN



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I'm gonna keep this short since we are well aware of this Bill, so explaining it seems redundant...

US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights

Source

(Washington, DC) – US President Barack Obama’s apparent decision to not veto a defense spending bill that codifies indefinite detention without trial into US law and expands the military’s role in holding terrorism suspects does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad, Human Rights Watch said today. The Obama administration had threatened to veto the bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), over detainee provisions, but on December 14, 2011, it issued a statement indicating the president would likely sign the legislation.


" By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law. In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side. "



Related materials

US: Revised Detainee Bill Still Fundamentally Flawed

President Should Veto Detainee Bill

US: Reject Drastic Detention Measures In Defense BIll






edit on 15-12-2011 by Daedal because: Fixing video



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Mass Nazi-like detention of US citizens by this government would never be allowed to happen, at least not anytime now or in the near future. I wouldn't put it past them to give some outspoken dissident a cell without a key though, or any phone calls for the rest of his life for that matter.

Why not just kill them? /sarcasm

Either/or, the current establishment has already # on our law of the land multiple times, to me this constitutes treason of the highest magnitude. Everything is the same today as it was yesterday... #ty.

You should already be furious as of a decade ago.
edit on 15-12-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join