It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Generals confront Obama on NDAA : Bin Ladin has won

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:14 AM

Originally posted by St Udio
bin Laden won?
way behind the scene... does the name of the Israel Moses Seif family for which Israel is named ring a bell?

Pretty sure the state of Israel is named after the legendary patriarch Jacob, who adopted the theophoric Israel ("he who struggles with God") after he wrestled an angel. The name was applied to his descendants, and one of their kingdoms, thousands of years before Israel Moses Sieff was born.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:18 AM
reply to post by Throwback

ok, ok i see now you are definitely correct here, throwback, and i thank you for showing me some things and making me read some things a little more carefully. because you were making sense to me i wanted to find why there was so much concern and strong language in that rousing link i posted earlier.

"By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "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."

but now i see why, even though (as that story says) "the bill never expanded the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges," there is still a lot of reason for concern because:

the legislation would codify court decisions finding the President does have the authority to declare "enemy combatants," as commander-in-chief and under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda and its allies. The administration, which has pledged not to use this power, believes the bill leaves this legal issue unresolved.

so that means that the bill would leave open the possibility, legally, of what we're all afraid of happening. but you are totally right here, throwback, from what i can tell.

i still think it's scary.

but notice the part where it says obama promises to not use that power so we have nothing to worry about.

edit on 12/15/11 by godWhisperer because: need to point out everything is ok

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:50 AM
reply to post by godWhisperer

Someone is grasping at straws.

It's over. The enemy has one.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:19 AM

Originally posted by godWhisperer
reply to post by randyvs

you're right, i shouldn't be surprised anymore. but it is still very striking to see such blatant disregard for the quality of his own words. these people don't even care anymore- they will tell you whatever will make it easiest for them to achieve what they really want.

You're still letting the suit and tye fool you.
This is who these people truly are ok? The same blood thirsty psychopaths that have always ran things still have the riens. They just dress differently nowadays. But if you think for one minute they won't rip your heart out and send your head rolling. Then you aren't putting enough on it.

edit on 15-12-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by Throwback

I agree with you that that was probably done to cover POTUS derriere in the killing of Awlaki, which just shows how willing he is to do this to American citizens to cover his own unConstitutional actions. That is, if it is retroactive to the killing of Awlaki. If not, the only justification for it is in future Awlakis....who knows maybe they have some lined up...what if Awlaki himself was a tool to be used for such an operation, to imperal the rights of all US Citizens by committing treasonous actions against the State, and the repercussions would then need new laws to justify taking them out.
edit on 15-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:21 AM

Originally posted by godWhisperer

Originally posted by Throwback
reply to post by godWhisperer

If you read the bill, there clearly is an exemption for Americans.

i checked out your link and i see what you are saying.
i tried to do some more poking around and i found this from Senate bill sponsor Carl Levin:

Moreover, Senate bill sponsor Carl Levin said administration officials, in fact, lobbied against language excluding US citizens from indefinite military detentions without trials or due process. According to Levin:

"The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved....and the administration asked us to remove (it) which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section."

"It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee. (W)e removed it at the request of the administration....It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language, the absence of which is now objected to."

i got that quote here but i see that quote on other sites, too.
i notice that in the link you posted the date on the bill is dec. 1, 2011. i wonder if it's just a matter of the language changing since then.
i don't know for sure but perhaps that's why we still see the exemption for americans.

It was probably done that way to cause confusion. If someone posts the original lanaguage online or in print and says this is what it says, then the admin lobbies to have that language removed, the bill with the removed clause gets passed(maybe even without some members of Congress knowing of the change) and voila, they have what they want.

I'm thinking why is the administration making demands for removal of such language in the first place. I think the POTUS thinks too highly of himself.
edit on 15-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:54 AM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Well, I believe that future Awlaki's should be detained, but not indefinitely. I don't know, I'm kind of split on the decision to assassinate him.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:15 PM
reply to post by Throwback

"throwback:"I think that the only people who should be scared of it are terrorists. "

Please do Tell me: "what's a "terrorist" : today?
Iin a month?
Tell me who will be in office (if it exists in the same form) in 6 years? Who will they claim are "terrorists"???

Naomi Wolfe says:"That's a" status" crime".
Who decides to change a citizens(i.e.your) status
A committee?; a majority your peers? or one single man(who may or may not have an agenda to protect???)
MIAC report says returning vets and peace activists are "possible terrorists"

You are not being honest if you don't think these acts are subject to interpretation unless ALL the details are spelled out. and even then: " er uh that would depend on what the meaning of the word "is"is!!!!!

edit on 15-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Throwback
This is what I found looking through the bill. Unless someone provides text from the bill that proves this is an evil bill, I think that the only people who should be scared of it are terrorists.

That all depends on what they consider terrorist acts I suppose. Rand Paul has a bit of information along with the sponser of the bill, John McCain.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by 46ACE

I completely agree, the label terrorist could be construed to be whatever the people in power want it to mean. I am a veteran of the Iraq war, and I gaurantee that becuase of my views and opinions of our current society I could easily be labeled a terrorist. I rather consider myself a Patriot. To me that is someone who cares about their Country and it's citezens and not the agenda of the elite. I would like to see all of the faces of the people who approve of this bill when they start arresting the occupy protesters and holding them indefinitly calling them terrorists. I also fear that this could lead as far as arresting people like us who speak our minds on these sites. Who knows, we may already be on someones list. I am very happy to see that we have Military leaders who are starting to stand against the administration, I gives some hope.

There is a storm brewing on the horizon, and we the people shall reap what is ours.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:25 PM
As I'm sure many people have pointed out, US citizens are exempt. Technically.

Just because you're a citizen, don't think for a second that you can't be declared an enemy combatant.

I'm sure Al-Walaki and his son thought that same thing.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by usmc0311

There is a storm brewing on the horizon, and we the people shall reap what is ours.

I think its quite sad how far we've fallen, really.

These are dark times for the homeland.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:36 PM

Originally posted by usmc0311

I completely agree, the label terrorist could be construed to be whatever the people in power want it to mean. I am a veteran of the Iraq war, and I gaurantee that becuase of my views and opinions of our current society I could easily be labeled a terrorist.

Have faith in the american system that you had upheld courageously during your service, with the 3rd branch of the gov - the judiciary.

This is USA, not China whereby the constitution is defined by the whims and fancy of the CCP on any single day itself. There is rule of law in this land no matter how other nations sought to divide the country's people.

If a terrorist can be defined as anyone who opens his mouth in this country as in China, you and I would have been long held in Guantanamo Bay.

It is a bright day finally for America, where NO human - foreigner or american, is above the law, and if suspected of crimes against humanity such as terrorism - the murders of innocents, will face indefinate incarceration till justice is finally served.

edit on 15-12-2011 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:38 PM
Oh say can you see..... And the land of the FREE LOADERS and the home of the SLAVES! We are hosed...

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:43 PM

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

April 16, 2009

What a welcome home from Iraq.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:44 PM
we need a constitutional lawyer in this dialogue.
I haven't gone through the docs much but it is imperitive that the capitalization used is observed when describing the United States of America, the UNITED STATES (a corporation), and when the terms for citizen is used.
In the corporate democracy that is the UNTITED STATES, only those that live within the limits of the District of Columbia are considered to be citizens and those outside are foreignors.
To me this looks like a corporate takeover.

All corporations are described in print by it being all in capital letters. So far I have only seen UNITED STATES mentioned and not the constitutional republic that is the United States of America.

U.S. Citizen/Subject – A corporate fictitious entity that merely represents the real person. It acts as a “strawman.” [To call oneself a “sovereign citizen” or “sovereign subject” is an oxymoron, since “sovereign” and “citizen/subject” are mutually exclusive of each other.] When asked if you are a “U.S. Citizen” on corporate legal documents, if you check “yes,” you agree to the terms of Corporate Law and unknowingly relinquish your sovereign status and transfer all of your rights to the UNITED STATES CORPORATION since you are now under contract.
edit on 15-12-2011 by manna2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:03 PM
I've mentioned this once before in Proto's thread about his break-in, but feel it's best to bring it up again in light of what's going on.

So I go to my local bar a few times a week. It's within walking distance, so works out perfect for a semi-drunk like myself.

Anyways, I'm often blabbing to the regulars or guests about some of my wild ideas. I caught the attention of some woman who was praising me for my insight, and asked me to join her table and chat with her husband. This guy seemed to be highly intelligent, and yet a bit detached from...things...people. I was already drunk, so didn't think much of it at the time. We went over various topics, and he mostly listened, but gave some input as well. I recall asking if people truly needed to be controlled, ie. government. He responded, "Absolutely". I came back with, "well it seems to be that way, based on how the people have already been conditioned from birth, but I question of this is truly a need within our nature right now, or if it's continuously forced into us as the only reasonable, yet assumptive path to take". Or something close to that. He seemed to be a little disgusted at this response.

We continued to chat, and at some point he said something along the lines of, "well, I work for this company, and I'm not going to say who, but we relocate millions of people from their homes to work in other countries". I thought this was very weird, and was a little spooked at this point. His wife was quick to come back and praise me a bit more, then offer me another drink. They were obviously trying to get me smashed. So I kinda forgot WTH was going on and continued chatting. Towards the end of the night and while her husband was off to wee, she said it was so nice that I was talking with them, and that her husband rarely found people that he could hold intellectual debates with. She then asked for my number to meet up again sometime soon, and asked if I lived close. I foolishly gave my number thinking she was being sincere (recall, I'm hammered by this point), and let her know...yep, I live in that building right there!

So husband came back, and while I was conversing with the woman, the guy entered a phone conversation. I overhead these exact words, "I have another one here for you to pick up. Yes. I will". I was instantly freaked the hell out by this, and the wife looked at me, seemingly sincerely and said, "Oh don't worry about that. That's just for his work".


So I tried to play cool, but was still freaked at this point. Within a couple of minutes, the husband announced to the wife, "We have to go now" and I never saw them again. I woke up hungover the next day and immediately thought back to the bizarre experience that happened just hours prior. I was flipped out, so waited until noon, then texted the couple, Paula and Gordon, thanking them for a wonderful night, and asking when was best to get back together again. I got no response. I tried once more a week later with a similar message. Nothing.

I may be slightly to moderately paranoid depending on the situation, my mood, etc...but....I don't know. This one really tripped me out, and I still think something was likely up here. When I go back to the vibe that came off of him, it was pretty cold. Damned I was stupid. Hope I don't end up in a prison just for speaking my mind.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:15 PM
What is so strange to me, is that our own president, and many in congress and the senate, pose the greatest threat to our national security, and are causing very grave damage to America, far more than all the terrorists in the entire world have done...

It makes what any real terrorists have done to us, look like just a paper cut in comparison....

This is way past scary, this is truly horrifying... Obama and his little helpers are a basket case of death to humanity, and not just to americans, but to people anywhere.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by 46ACE

Though I can't tell the future, I'm pretty sure that a terrorist will be a person who commits politically motivated acts of destruction, or someone who is supporting those acts. It's one of the few things in the world that is black and white - just don't blow stuff up or support people that blow stuff up. The bill even defines what it calls "covered persons". Why are you trying to speculate on something that is already spelled out. Stop being irrationally paranoid.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by Throwback

Remember this? " I did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinski" or " It depends on what the meaning of is means". You can't make this stuff up. This new bill is garbage - it a twisting snake that no one can put a handle on and they, meaning our government, know it. This bill is just more protection for the TPTB to do what they want and when they want to. If any of you believe this bill was for our own good you are not thinking straight.

You have to know that somewhere down the road they will amend it and rework it to where it will get the job done. Have you ever in your life heard such an up rising on a single bill, and they are acting like it is just business as usual. Our government is so broken and unaware, that it is coming to the point that the only way out of our trouble is to fire all of them - and I mean all them. Re-elect those that are patriots, and say goodbye to the self serving figure heads that think they know what is best for this country while they rape America of its freedom.

What does it take to see that they don't care what we want, what we think or what we need as country. Been on a plane trip lately - never thought I would ever see that in my lifetime - TSA, and we brought it on our selves by letting these war mongering freedom killing idiots run our country. The middle east hates us for a reason, and the rest of the globe is waiting to see how much crap the American is willing to take.

Mr Hope and Change is doing more for the terrorist than they could ever do on their own LOL. What a joke that has been played on us.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in