I swear that I will support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic

My knee is startin' to act up.
I feel a storm a brewin'.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Don't dare try and sit there to flip this back on Govt as that is the only threat in your world for which delete Govt and there is nothing more The SCUM would love but to get rid of Govt completely.

Pay attention to your handle, we are targeting the "Men behind the mask" and not the puppets in Govt!

"I swear that I will support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God"

"I choose you to be my _______, to have and to hold from this day forward for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish as long as we both shall live."

All of these are only as good as the person making them.

The truth is God, there is no truth except for God.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Thanks for supporting my comment and clarifying for the one who was too quick to jump.

It's quite clear that many of our politicians have forgotten who they work for, which is the American people.
It seems as though many of them had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they were saying their Oath of Office. They are not dedicated to protecting the Constitution nor the American people.

Police and military men alike need to remember who they work for. Although military men are considered government property, we pay their salaries and they belong to the American people. Tax dollars have paid for all the toys they are trained to use. Every tank, every plane, every gun, every bullet, every piece of body armor, and every last shred of cammouflage they wear belongs to the American people.

I would love it if the military men coming home from Iraq at the moment enjoyed Christmas with their families, then surrounded the White House, the Pentagon, and the Federal Building on December 26th and demanded every one who voted for these un-American bills and laws step down or be forceably removed from their appointed positions. Every American should write to their Congressman as well as the White House and inform them that they aren't going to be paying taxes until said laws are reversed.

As I see it, this is the only way anything is going to get back on track and freedom is restored.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Don't dare try and sit there to flip this back on Govt as that is the only threat in your world for which delete Govt and there is nothing more The SCUM would love but to get rid of Govt completely.

Pay attention to your handle, we are targeting the "Men behind the mask" and not the puppets in Govt!

edit on 15-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Yes, big gov is the culprit............corrupt politicians etc.......

And im not the one who said it, he did, so dont YOU DARE try to take what he said and project it on me , just because YOU made a statement before reading all of his post........

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Learn to make the distinction with the corrupt politicians and Big Govt, they do not go hand in hand! Corruptions long range goal is to limit the reach of Govt and to not expand upon it.

Do you not know anything?

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Learn to make the distinction with the corrupt politicians and Big Govt, they do not go hand in hand! Corruptions long range goal is to limit the reach of Govt and to not expand upon it.

Do you not know anything?

..........I cannot believe you just made the statement that big gov and corrupt politicians do not go hand in hand......

Im not sure you should be asking ME if i know anything...........

The whole premise of the constitution was to limit the reach of government and protect the rights of the people of the republic..........

Limit the reach of gov = smaller gov............capiche'?

I hope that the second this bill passes the military will march in and deem all of these traitors terrorists, arrest them, and send them to Guantanamo indefinitely.

See how much they like the bill then.

reply to post by Erasurehead


Were you asked to defend the "people" who live on US soil, or just the piece of paper that is the constitution from those who might take it away?

Semantics are everything, those words were very carefully thought out, their true meaning might be slightly different than you think. "defend the "Constitution" means to defend a piece of paper, as the there is no "Constitution" - that is just an idea. There are people - humans, and they might need defending - though the US hasn't defended its people from anything for ages.

If it were me, I would say "to defend those for whom the Constitutional constructs and ideas are their supreme bond, and to make sure the safety and sovereign individual freedom is protected from those who seek to alter that divine right."

There are other wordsmiths that might have a better oath, but one should really examine the words, those who write the words - the symbols, know what they are doing and very often create a double entandre with the true meaning hidden behind another.

Originally posted by eywadevotee
The truth is God, there is no truth except for God.

Shouldn't you be handing me a pamphlet or something to go with that....I didn't even hear a knock on the door. You guys are getting stealthier....

OT/ since God is not running for office...my vote will go to Ron Paul. He knows the importance of our Constitutional Rights. To the OP. Thank You for your Service to our once Great Country.

reply to post by Ryanssuperman


Read all 1100 pages.

Get it, and red it for yourself.

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Ryanssuperman

 

This is what submarine is referring to.

From Sec. 1031 of S1867

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.

From 1032 of S1867

b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require- ment to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require- ment 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.

www.gpo.gov...

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

Its all worded quite perfectly. If you do some research on the subject, you'll find several former 4 Star Generals of the US Military have analyzed this bill, as well as several experts on military powers, and all have agreed that the language used is purposely misleading.

They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.

Originally posted by Submarines
reply to post by Ryanssuperman

 

Read all 1100 pages.

Get it, and red it for yourself.

Just so I don't reiterate, check out this post. Has a lot of useful information on the subject. Especially the two videos. One of McCain stating that yes, US citizens can be detained under this bill.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For the courageous soldiers that serve the nation.

Do understand that there are enemies around, and no one is whom they seem to be, espacially terrorists whom hide amongst us all, a true pain in the posterior to weed out, more so with democratic laws.

An iranian revolutionary guard could easily passed off as an american, with real citizenship status easily bought by following even legal immigration laws. That citizenship does and never will change a leopard's spot, if that leopard had been programmed for a mission on hand.

Despite the hue and cries of 'constitutional change', what had really changed? Had the 1st amendment been altered? None. Only that no human - foreigner or american, is above the laws of humanity.

How then is a soldier to differentiate between a citizen and a terrorist? The difference lays in intent. The citizen will NEVER uprise for nothing, unless they and their loved ones - families, friends and relatives that makes up the total sum of our society including yours - are threatened, socially or economically. Open your own eyes, as an informed human above all, and you will know the truth for it will be self evident - before you pull that trigger.

But when a terrorist or terrorists strike, you will know for sure that it is more for a personal than national issue, and worst of all, there will be warnings nor long drawn out suits against anyone, just simply violent mayhem and murders upon innocent citizens.

That will be the one and only time to be true to your oath while on national soil, and with the fullest of right of defense and protection, to protect those and symbols whom you care about.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Learn to make the distinction with the corrupt politicians and Big Govt, they do not go hand in hand! Corruptions long range goal is to limit the reach of Govt and to not expand upon it.

Do you not know anything?

Oh, but they do go hand in hand, the correlation is direct and absolute. Corrupt politicians don't want to limit government! The larger the government, the more opportunities they have to exploit loopholes and those strong in power, but weak in heart. The corrupt depend on the ample possibilities big government provides, and big government depends on the finances the corrupt (politicians, cronies, and lobbyists) offer freely to those with the power.

No matter how good the intentions, the power of politics will attract the snakes, and quickly corrupt the pure. Maybe not all of them, but all it takes is a handful to ruin everything for the majority, as has been proven time and time again.

Also, "do you not know anything?" was an unnecessarily rude question for someone proposing a different political solution than you, considering that whomever is right, you both have good intentions. It's the rabid finger-on-the-kill-switch partisan politics that's ruining any chances the US has at ever uniting as one nation again, or at least solving a few problems here and there.

I posted this in another thread but think it applies here as well.

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.

www.washingtontimes.com...

April 16, 2009

What a welcome home from Iraq.

reply to post by Erasurehead


Yep, Obama and the best most magnificent federal Govt is writing themselves quite the rules lately.

Marshal Law just around the bend?

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


You're right! Because the people detained are never accused of a crime!

They will simply exist one day .... vanish the next. Never to be seen again, sent to a secret military detention installation. You can't have your rights violated if you cease to exist.

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman

Its all worded quite perfectly. If you do some research on the subject, you'll find several former 4 Star Generals of the US Military have analyzed this bill, as well as several experts on military powers, and all have agreed that the language used is purposely misleading.

That’s the difference between you and I. Rather than just take the opinion of some “expert”, and trust they are being truthful about what the bill says, I can and will read for myself. You don’t even have to read the entire bill. Those you are trusting have done some of the work for you and have named the sections they claim authorize the government to detain American citizens, indefinitely and without probable cause.

www.gpo.gov...

It begins on page 426

Subtitle D – Detainee Matters

AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU- THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The key word in that paragraph is “COVERED”, which is specified in Subsection (b) found on the following page.

.

(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 respon- sible 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.

That’s it. I agree we have plenty of reasons to distrust Washington, but this, I believe, is not the boogie man of which so many are fearful.

I’ve read several comments regarding the meaning of the word “requirement”, as used in this statement, found on page 430

The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Context is everything, people. To understand the context and the meaning of “requirement” you need only begin reading back on page 429

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.

This section refers to who is tasked with the detention of persons “captured in the course of hostilities”., as defined in Public Law 107-40, which was passed on September 18, 2001 and bears the full title

Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

www.gpo.gov...

So, what is being said is that the United States Armed Forces is “required” to maintain custody of all persons the U.S. Armed Forces has captured pursuant to its lawful activities. It does not mean the U.S. Armed Forces, the president or anyone else may “choose” to detain U.S. citizens, but is not “required” to do so.

To say that is just a complete fabrication and totally misrepresents the meaning, as plainly written for anyone to read.

It's the same as the State of Texas "requiring" the County Sheriff to maintain custody of persons charged with crimes against the state, until their trial. It doesn't mean that the Sheriff can choose to detain whoever he wants to, it only specifies what the law requires of him.