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.

 

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

page: 3
45
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Sorry mate, ill take the word of the many professionals and experts over your interpretation. I also doubt they could find enough LEGITIMATE terrorists to fill 50 FEMA camps... i doubt they could find ONE legitimate terrorist.
If you believe that this is nothing to be worried about and the Gov is doing the right thing then do you also think that the official story of 9/11 was true and there are big bad scary terrorists out there that are the ones who they are aiming to be put in the FEMA camps. Honestly look at the bigger picture.
edit on 15-12-2011 by 412304 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 412304

Sorry mate, ill take the word of the many professionals and experts over your interpretation.


What interpretation? I just quoted the actual text of the bill. I didn't "interpret" anything. I just wish people would read for themselves. Just letting others tell you what is there and what it means, is as bad as Pelosi saying "We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it".



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 



So then you believe that the many experts and proffesionals that look at this stuff every days and even the people that process the bills are wrong? and that they dont know what they are doing?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Hmmmm... interesting...



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by Erasurehead
 

Which part of the Constitution do you think is violated by the FY2012 NDAA? I can tell you now, it does not violate the 6th Amendment. That amendment applies to criminal prosecutions, and the NDAA doesn't change criminal prosecutions in any way whatsoever.





Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof on US soil or Against US force's or it allies anywhere, or commits the following: in aid of or comfort too hostile or the Belligerent shall, by the above listed acts, Give up US citizenship and will be held until time of trial, or until the US and its Allies say the hostility's(war) has ended. is this clear enough?? now do you see how it could be interpreted? Not just by the TSA DHS FBI but by the National Guard (ARNG), MP Mil police or CID, Criminal Intel Div, CIC,Counter Intelligence Corps DOJ, Dep of Justice DoD, Dep of Defense CIA NSA and the Secret Service not to mention the State and Local PD. edit on 15-12-2011 by bekod because: editting Ah thanks. I believe you have answered my above question. Looking into the definition of belligerent. Being belligerent is now cause to have your US citizenship revoked. All you natural born Americans can have your citizenship taken away by being belligerent to whoever the current administration is. As a non citizen imagine what they can do to you. This bill is a treasonous act.
This Thread

You can become a non citizen simply by being belligerent under this act. Is it clear enough to see through yet? BTW sorry for the long quote but it was necessary to communicate the context)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shirak

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by Erasurehead
 

Which part of the Constitution do you think is violated by the FY2012 NDAA? I can tell you now, it does not violate the 6th Amendment. That amendment applies to criminal prosecutions, and the NDAA doesn't change criminal prosecutions in any way whatsoever.





Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof on US soil or Against US force's or it allies anywhere, or commits the following: in aid of or comfort too hostile or the Belligerent shall, by the above listed acts, Give up US citizenship and will be held until time of trial, or until the US and its Allies say the hostility's(war) has ended. is this clear enough?? now do you see how it could be interpreted? Not just by the TSA DHS FBI but by the National Guard (ARNG), MP Mil police or CID, Criminal Intel Div, CIC,Counter Intelligence Corps DOJ, Dep of Justice DoD, Dep of Defense CIA NSA and the Secret Service not to mention the State and Local PD. edit on 15-12-2011 by bekod because: editting Ah thanks. I believe you have answered my above question. Looking into the definition of belligerent. Being belligerent is now cause to have your US citizenship revoked. All you natural born Americans can have your citizenship taken away by being belligerent to whoever the current administration is. As a non citizen imagine what they can do to you. This bill is a treasonous act.
This Thread

You can become a non citizen simply by being belligerent under this act. Is it clear enough to see through yet? BTW sorry for the long quote but it was necessary to communicate the context)



Thank you! this is exactly what i needed. I shall use this against any other ignorant people who think the government is all loving and caring. You only have to use 1% of your brain to see how #ed up everything is right now.
Y'know its funny. Americans cant rebel against the current government but the government allows other countries to rebel against theirs... God America is so #ed up beyond recognition its deplorable.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I think its important to call the decision makers on policies which are anti American and Anti constitutional however it is more important to stay positive and hold hope for a better tomorrow. It all starts with a dream of a better tomorrow and it is always darkest before the dawn. Education is key here connection not fear.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 412304

So then you believe that the many experts and proffesionals that look at this stuff every days and even the people that process the bills are wrong? and that they dont know what they are doing?


What I am telling you is to not listen to someone just because they tell you they are an expert. You don't know me, do you? But, because I haven't presented myself as an expert, you assume I am not. Yet, you blindly follow the lead of someone who tells you they are. I am not and will never claim to be an expert on anything. But, I am intelligent enough to read the english language, seek out definitions and/or the etymology of words or phrases I do not understand and then apply that knowledge to what I am reading.

What I am telling you is to do is to read for yourself. What I am telling you is to ask questions of these so called experts and demand to be shown evidence to support their claims.

I will listen to any point of view, but I refuse to accept that on blind faith, when I have the capability to investigate the claims and evidence for myself and then determine if I am being snowed.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 412304
Thank you! this is exactly what i needed. I shall use this against any other ignorant people who think the government is all loving and caring. You only have to use 1% of your brain to see how #ed up everything is right now.
Y'know its funny. Americans cant rebel against the current government but the government allows other countries to rebel against theirs... God America is so #ed up beyond recognition its deplorable.


This is the ultimate example of what I have been saying. Without question, you accepted that quote as fact. You didn't even bother to ask where the information originated or who uttered the words.

I copy/pasted the following passage into Google, from the post you so readily accepted as fact


Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof on US soil or Against US force's or it allies anywhere, or commits the following: in aid of or comfort too hostile or the Belligerent shall, by the above listed acts, Give up US citizenship and will be held until time of trial,


Would you like to know in how many places that phrase appeared? Two. Now, would you like to know where those two were? AboveTopSecret. They didn't appear in any document anywhere.
edit on 15-12-2011 by WTFover because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2011 by WTFover because: Spelling, dammit



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Shirak
 


Please read my above post...

Can you provide the text of the bill that supports what you quoted?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

And some people wonder what all the anger is about. None of our politicians should hold office unless they have served time in the armed forces. They of all people have no business passing judgement over our troops as such without the experience in the armed forces - how dare they make a statement like that.

I have to say also, that our government officials seem to purposely be stirring the pot and pissing off a large amount of Americans, Janet N as an example - could you be any more ignorant Janet? Of course I could be wrong and she could be just plain dumb - who knows? I wonder if she read the Obama Health Care Bill? _javascript:icon('
')



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


I have read it, and to my understanding it says what the experts are confirming it says. But i am no lawyer or expert.

I would agree with you and take your word on it if it was just one expert who was saying this stuff... but its not. its the majority of them if not all.
But on top of that you only need to look into the situation the USA is in. Look at was has been happening. do you believe the official story of 9/11? if not then you must think the gov is behind it, if the gov is behind it then there are no real terrorists or real threat that justifies this bill, so there is no terrorists to fill all these FEMA camps, therefor there is a different and more sinister reason behind this bill masquerading as a way to deal with the non existent terrorism.

I think rather then taking this bill at face value you need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by 412304
 

I agree with you. This bill is here for them not us, there are to many people that I would consider experts saying this bill has a underlying life of its own. The way I see it - all that has to be done is for your government to label you a terrorist and you done - game over.

The FEMA camps are not there just to collect dust. There is something brewing and this is starting to look like part of the brewing. I hope I do not live long enough to see my family go thru this planned corruption. Our government is out of control and we are being lied to on a daily bases - not good for America. I never thought I would see this in my life time.

We need someone desperately that will play by the rules, lead and care about America and it's people. Obviously we do not have that now.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 412304
 


therefor there is a different and more sinister reason behind this bill masquerading as a way to deal with the non existent terrorism.


Exactly. They are planning on rounding up Patriots and any other of Obamas dissenters. I found this article very interesting called "Disappearing’ dissenters in Obama’s new Amerika" by Canada Free Press. I totally agree with it.

www.canadafreepress.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 412304
 


Those are all assumptions. Why did you not address my last post to you, regarding that quote you accepted as proof positive and incontrovertible evidence, when I quite clearly disproved its veracity?

At least I have provided the text to support my position and not just haphazardly thrown out unsupported claims.

But, hey. Believe what you want. As for me, I know there are times when it is advisable to break out the tin foil hat, but this, in my investigation, is not one of them.

We have a Constitution which prohibits the very activity you fear and until an amendment to that Constitution is passed and ratified by three-fourths of the states, it is the law of the land.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Can you answer me something and then i will try to go about getting the certain bits and pieces of the text from the bill that i think supports my argument... 1. Can you tell me if you think the American government has a legitimate reason for this bill. And 2. do you think they will find enough legitimate terrorists to fill those FEMA camps? Also 3. weather or not you believe the official story of 9/11.



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

Originally posted by 412304

Can you answer me something and then i will try to go about getting the certain bits and pieces of the text from the bill that i think supports my argument... 1. Can you tell me if you think the American government has a legitimate reason for this bill. And 2. do you think they will find enough legitimate terrorists to fill those FEMA camps? Also 3. weather or not you believe the official story of 9/11.


In a U2U, I will, but they are off topic here.

But, instead of going to the bill to find "bits and pieces that support your argument", you should read the entirety of Subtitle D, beginning on page 426 and ending on page 445, to gain a complete understanding of the context. Then and only then make a determination of fact. It is extremely unproductive to first form an opinion and then seek supportive evidence, because you will always find it. The proper method is to closely examine all the available evidence and then form you opinion.
edit on 15-12-2011 by WTFover because: Last paragraph



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I don't think they should be allowed to snatch up and "detain" anybody, regardless of citizenship.
But that's just me...



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Shirak
 


Please read my above post...

Can you provide the text of the bill that supports what you quoted?





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.

www.gpo.gov...

Though I am not your google monkey and I did provide a link here it is for your perusal



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Shirak
 


Hmm. That looks entirely different from what you posted before. Are we on to a different argument now? Just a reminder, here is what you posted


Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof on US soil or Against US force's or it allies anywhere, or commits the following: in aid of or comfort too hostile or the Belligerent shall, by the above listed acts, Give up US citizenship and will be held until time of trial, or until the US and its Allies say the hostility's(war) has ended. is this clear enough?? now do you see how it could be interpreted? Not just by the TSA DHS FBI but by the National Guard (ARNG), MP Mil police or CID, Criminal Intel Div, CIC,Counter Intelligence Corps DOJ, Dep of Justice DoD, Dep of Defense CIA NSA and the Secret Service not to mention the State and Local PD. edit on 15-12-2011 by bekod because: editting Ah thanks. I believe you have answered my above question. Looking into the definition of belligerent. Being belligerent is now cause to have your US citizenship revoked. All you natural born Americans can have your citizenship taken away by being belligerent to whoever the current administration is. As a non citizen imagine what they can do to you. This bill is a treasonous act.


My question was, what text in the bill supports this quote? What you have provided does not.

Another little hint, when posting on ATS it is very helpful to use paragraphs.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join