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.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by WTFover
You appear to be a rational person in all this hooplah. I appreciate that.
I'll admit that the way I interpreted it, it caused some concern.

But a wee question.

What, in your opinion, does this bill cover that hadn't been covered previously? Why does this need to be in writing?

Caveat; I'm aware that this is an appropriations bill. I'm just curious about the contentious sections.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:17 PM
Heads up - CNN Is reporting the bill has passed the Senate. It's all over. I myself have read the bill countless times today and I'm of the belief it will be interpreted as other ATS'rs have pointed out and will be used to lock up US Citizens accused of Terrorism indefinitely. What is even scarier is that just about everyone on this board could be labeled a terrorist - with no oversight - no burden of proof - and now can be locked away forever in some secret jail.

Welcome to the Beginning of the End my fellow Americans.

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

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by beezzer

Thank you for the compliment.

My opinion is that the intent is to clarify and codify what has been nothing but mass confusion on the matter of the detention of enemy combatants, since the beginning of all this in 2001. This has been a matter of contention since the Bush era.

Obviously, whether or not it is successful in that task is doubtful.
edit on 15-12-2011 by WTFover because: last line

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:29 PM
reply to post by Ryanssuperman

I agree with you, "terrorists" can be anyone that they see fit to label as such, or more truthfully, anyone whom fails to conform to their way of thinking. I am a vet and according to Big Sis I could have tendencies to become a homegrown terrorist since I was active duty in both Iraq and Afgahn. I also took the same oath as the OP and will also honor that oath, with my life if necessary to insure that our constitution and nation never falls.

The problem with this law is that due to our precidence system of case law in courts, it could eventually be perverted to apply to U.S. citizens as long as they have been labeled either terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. The fact that it is worded to exclude citizens does not provide much security for our liberty when it is also written to include terrorists.

With the War on Terror in full swing all a tyrannical judge has to do is establish that you, as a U.S. citizen have ties to terrorism and then your rights under the bill of rights would be moot under this law. If the USSC upholds the lower courts ruling then the section excluding U.S. citizens will be as useless as our 4th ammendment is under the Patriot Act. You have to remember that under our current governmental mentality it is the rights and safety of the collective, not the rights and safety of the individual that matters.

The way I am starting to see things is that all the time I spent serving in the Navy in Iraq and Afgahn fighting "enemies" in the middle east, the real enemies to our nation were living big on the backs of the taxpayers and defiling our halls of congress with their presence. The most important part of that oath is "foreign AND domestic". Our nation has been occupied by hostile forces for many years only those forces do not wear uniforms or swear allegience to a foreign nation, instead they wear thousand dollar suits and their only allegience is to greed, corruption and power.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:33 PM
reply to post by WTFover

Just for my own piece of mind then, if Napolitano and DHS can classify returning vets as potential domestic terrorists and the bill only specifies terrorists, then wouldn't the logical conclusion be that it (the bill) can be used in the manner oft stated in these threads?

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:05 PM

Originally posted by WTFover
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.

You asked me to provide text to support what I quoted I provided it now your saying the supporting text looks different from the smaller that is because it is the full reference text you originally asked for. Also when pasting into the quote function unless you are being pedantic you have a 3 centimeter bar to review and edit text. So for referencing purposes I am not going to flower up something already formatted correctly in a post further up the page.
The purpose of your two arguments is apparent to both attack an editing style I have chosen to make me appear uneducated in your written chiding tone of your text - further adding weight to your first attack on the evidence I provided at your request. This is a common technique used to try and confuse the casual reader on forums which leads me to believe you have used it before.

Perhaps more importantly you should reread what you originally asked for but I think you already know that was provided and that was "supporting text" to the paraphrase quote you were trying to discredit.
Your strawman derailment technique has done nothing to dissuade the original paraphrase argument and the linked text now provided in full from showing the evident truth for those with the attention span to study it.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by WTFover

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.
Of course they can't choose to detain who ever they want, that would be absurd. After everything you said, we are back to square one. You have clearly admitted that they have the ability to detain US citizens indefinitely if those citizens are considered to be terrorists. And that's a rather easy thing to accuse a person of if they don't have the right to a trial.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:12 AM
The basic issue at the core of this debate is that the mere accusation of terrorism is the grounds for detaining anyone without first acquiring evidence to support the original accusation. In essence you are being proven guilty first and then must prove your own innocence while being detained for an indefinite duration with no access to legal representation. And then during this indefinite detention they have the right to essentially coerce a confession based on nothing more than hearsay evidence.

Simply, put two boxer's in a ring, tie one to a chair bolted to the ground and gagged, then tell him to defend himself against the opponent.

A couple more American examples:

Salem Witch Hunt

Japanese Relocation Centers

Is it likely that the legislation can be misinterpreted? Yes

Proven if you watched CSPAN and saw the arguments presented about the Indefinite Detention aspect of the legislation.

Is it possible for this legislation to be misused? Yes

Power often corrupts, and our elected officials have proven more than once it can happen to anyone. Nixon's impeachment for example. The current insider trading issues within congress are a more blatant example of how our elected officials often misuse the trust placed in them for their own benefit.

Anyway that is my two cents.

edit on 16-12-2011 by Agwolf because: spelling

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:27 AM
reply to post by Ryanssuperman

A bit moronic that someone from Toronto is debating with a member of the US military about the passage of this bill.

OWS, Oathkeepers, some Tea Party spin offs - have been labeled as terrorists. (many have to research)They are US citizens, I think I am safe to assume.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:41 AM
I took that oath in the 70's when I joined the Marines.

I still believe in that oath and get so upset when I see the likes of Obama, and Congress taking the oath then turning around and pissing on the very Constitution they just took the oath to uphold and protect.

It is time for the American People to step in and take back our country from these criminals.

Securing our borders, cutting the size or Government, allow children to be educated not how to pass the test. End lazyness in America. Get rid of the Fed. Go back to the Gold standard for the Dollar.

Kill Obamacare. The people who would rather buy a big screen than health insurance then expect the government to pay for that health care.

Sorry, you have to take care of your own life. You want someone to take care of you, move to Europe.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:04 AM
oh please, people said the same thing about the patriot act and nothing happened. you all are all talk

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:17 AM
reply to post by Erasurehead

"I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

I took that oath too.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Erasurehead
"I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

This is the first line of the oath I took when I entered the military way back in the late 80's. The Constitution was sacred to us. It was untouchable and could never be taken away. Today I shed a tear for my country, the right to a fair and speedy trial has been ripped away from us by traitors in Washington. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is set to get though congress.

Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".

8th article of the Bill of Rights (Ratified as the Sixth Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791)

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.

If Obama doesn't veto this bill then he is a traitor and should be removed from office for violating his oath of office. I recall him saying these words back in 2008, did he not?

"I, Barack Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Have Americans become so insecure and afraid of the big bad terrorists that we are willing to let those in Washington throw our rights away? I am not willing to accept this and no American should unless we have all become a bunch of cowards.

OWS and Tea Party need something to protest about? THIS IS IT. A couple of million of us in front of the White House is what needs to happen. I pray America wakes up. I will be there.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty"
-Ben Franklin

edit on 12/15/2011 by Erasurehead because: fit title

.In 1907 Indiana became the first place in the world to legalize forced sterilization of the poor, prisoners, and mentally ill. Washington, Connecticut, California, Virginia, Nevada, Iowa, New Jersey, and New York all followed suit. In fact, New Jersey's eugenics bills were signed into law by then governor, soon to be president, Woodrow Wilson.
In 1912 the Rockefeller Foundation was created, supported by oil billionaire John D. Rockefeller. The Rockefeller Foundation funded eugenics programs, endorsed by John Rockefeller Jr. himself.
Though it is often said today that the concept of an "Aryan race" was invented by Hitler or the Nazis, this is not true. The concept of an Aryan race certainly predates the rise of Nazism. Here, in 1915, in the most popular film in American history up to that time, the entire story focused on the concept of defending the Aryan race.

"The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation.... until at last there there had sprung into exsistence a great Ku Klu Klan". WOODROW WILSON..
This from
All of this posted by me is from what I believe initiated the rise and fall of the LATE GREAT UNITED STATES. I say late because in my opinion ... even though we the people realise whats going on... we know it too late..
edit on 16-12-2011 by archangel2012 because: forgot to post a link to a song in reference to world events

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:29 AM

Originally posted by wlord
oh please, people said the same thing about the patriot act and nothing happened. you all are all talk

Oh, really?
So, airport molestations would be happening right now without the Patriot Act?
Wire tapping and eavesdropping on American citizens would've happened without the Patriot Act?

Please come out from under your rock and wake the hell up.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:55 AM
So the best defense we can come up with for this bill is that it allegedly doesn't apply to US citizens? I think the main thrust of the argument here is that this type of detention violates the spirit of the US constitution, regardless of whether it may be used against you personally. Was not the intent behind the 6th amendment that every human being who is accused of a crime has the right to a defense? If certain people lose the right to be informed of the nature of the accusations against them, doesn't that erode the certainty of due process for all of us? At the very least, this establishes a dangerous precedent for detention without trial or evidence. Perhaps the complicated legal language exempts citizens. It's tough to tell.

So, if you get picked up, hooded, and taken to a detainment camp, what are you going to do? Explain to the soldier guarding the entrance that some subsection of some bill clearly defines you as exempt? I'm sure he'll release you immediately.

I know when the Canadian version of the Patriot Act was put through, all the apologists were quick to remind us that it was a "temporary measure" for these special circumstances, and there was nothing to fear since the bill came with a "sunset clause" which limited its duration. However, when the time came for the sunset clause to take effect, the government simply voted quietly to extend it.

So...what happens if a judge interprets these series of increasingly complex and interrelated bills as applying to American citizens who "through actions" renounce their citizenship and become "belligerents" instead of "citizens"? Is this scenario outside the bounds of reason? Judges, after all, are the ones who interpret the law, but they don't do so until after the law is in force.

Are we to deny the humanity of those who are not citizens of the United States? To assert that as long as it is only non-citizens whom we are stripping of their rights, nothing is wrong? I assert that when we sit back and allow this kind of thing to happen to someone else, we are "through actions" renouncing our citizenship in the human race.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:17 AM
reply to post by Erasurehead

I agree dude. once you take the oath to defend, you are to defend your homeland from invaders of all sorts and that would include those would want to enslave people.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by Erasurehead
There is no real arguement here, when you have people like Holder and Big sis and an administration full of America hateing socoialist running things, I would think they could define a terrorist as anything they want.Weather the bill says US citizen or not is redundent.

To many good people have stood by while at the same time giveing up there right to freedom for what they think is security, but the truely sad people are the one's that thought this would not dare happen to is that working for you now??

edit on 16-12-2011 by Battleline because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by Erasurehead

One question...

Where were all these "defenders of the constitution" when Bush was tearing it up and bringing in the Patriot Act?

Sorry to say it, but the armed forces will do as they are told, and if you won't accept the order as it is they'll dupe you into acting on it.

What will happen when the Govt. deems all protesters as "terrorists"?

If the $ collapsed tomorrow and there were thousands of people on the streets looting for everything they'll need to survive over the following six months, and you are ordered to open fire on the "terrorists", what will you do?

This would all be about sides, and which side you support. Traditionally, the US military has acted to follow orders even when those orders were based on weak/nonsensical/false information.
It was made clear shortly after going into Iraq that there were not WMD's, and yet soldiers kept on shooting.

While I accept that there are a lot of good, moral people in the US military, history has proven that the majority do not care about the truth, they trust the judgment of their leaders and they will follow orders. When they are told that the person in the street is a terrorist and they are told to shoot, most of them will.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:21 AM
reply to post by Erasurehead

The words "AND DOMESTIC" is probably why Obama is bringing the troops home right now. It's only days after the leak that the FEMA camps have been activated all over America......NOW he wants to bring the troops home. A bit coincidental if you ask me.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by detachedindividual

We were around and shouting loudly as well.

ATS really came to light just over the last year or so.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in