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.

 

S.1867: Can they really detain us? Let's find out.

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by anakark
 


No there isn't.

And it's supported in the Constitution and applicable law.

If you give material support to enemy forces, or engage in combat against the US military, your citizenship won't protect you.




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 
What keeps the progressive socialist running this country from just branding you a terrorist...............for what ever reason??

Ask yourself , why do THEY even need a law like this?

I hope your not so naive that you think this can't happen to you.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyTruth
reply to post by MegaMind
 


Would still love someone to chime in on the "WAIVER" part - does this mean, given certain conditions, the president would authorize military NOT to detain someone, or that the president could just ignore these rules entirely for the sake of national security and detain anyone?


The waiver is simply that - a waiver from the mandatory requirement to detain these people. In other words if for the sake of national security they DO NOT want to have to detain a person as REQUIRED by this law they can get a waiver not to.

Why would they want that? Maybe so they can get their CIA false flag asset out of jail and free?
edit on 16-12-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by anakark
 


No there isn't.

And it's supported in the Constitution and applicable law.

If you give material support to enemy forces, or engage in combat against the US military, your citizenship won't protect you.


Yes but it must be proven that you gave material support to enemy forces, or engaged in combat against the US military.

otherwise couldn't they just accuse you of it and then detain you forever??
edit on 16-12-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by MegaMind
 


Makes sense, thanks.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
What if your classified as a terrorist



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MegaMind
 


No. Existing law is not trumped by current law.

Existing law says that even in military tribunals, which these cases would be referred to, the burden of proof is still on the state. If not, you are to be either released to the proper civilian authorities or released period. If enough evidence exists you can be held until the end of hostilities. In the case of American citizens you will likely be tried and jailed/executed for treason.

Just like they did to Guantanamo detainees.
en.wikipedia.org...

The link above is a list of detainees + their current disposition.
edit on 16-12-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
has anything been heard from the supreme court on this bill?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Thanks for that, I really wasn't quite sure...



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 


It hasn't been challenged in SCOTUS yet.

It may be considering all the hooplah.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Go look at the list of what they say "terrorist acts" are, and who can be classified as a terrorist. It gets closer and closer to calling anyone questioning the acts of the federal government a terrorist.

So yes, they say they wont detain US citizens, UNLESS the are related to a terrorist group..and that line gets blurred further and further everyday.

Oh and i spent my morning calling senator after senator around the country, and from what i've heard, their offices are getting "flooded with calls against the DAA bill" as one senators assistant told me.

So they have to know that the people are not for this bill, it's where the bill LEADS that scares me.

What i'm basically seeing is, as the years fly by, there will be more and more laws set up to "protect" us.

Peace WITH freedom, peace without freedom is no peace at all.
edit on 16-12-2011 by dannotz because: add



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 


It hasn't been challenged in SCOTUS yet.

It may be considering all the hooplah.


indeed it would, although i wouldn't call it hooplah when an entire nation of people suddenly find themselves possible targets of their own military for the first time. forgive us of not entrusting our public servants to do whats in our best interest, when they have the track record they do.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
The key thing is getting the bill passed in the first place.

At a later date when some new "terrorist" attack takes place, this existing bill can be quickly modified to allow detention of US citizens.

With no bill in place first any attempt to suggest allowing the detention of US citizens indefinitely without a trial would hit a brick wall of indignation.

Now that you've agreed that it's okay if some people are detained indefinitely, it's just a simple matter of extending the scope of who can be detained indefinitely when the time is right.

You've opened the door to the possibility (just so long as it isn't you on the receiving end), but now you can easily be herded through it too.

After all, if it's right to lock up foreign "terrorists" to keep you all safe, then you have to agree it's right to lock up American "terrorists" too to keep you all safe - just so long as you're all safe.

In any case the thing you should be arguing is that even if it does only apply to foreign terrorists, this bill will do absolutely zip to stop terrorist attacks on the US.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Lately, I have been seeing many claims from all over the place. Claims that the US will be able to detain US Citizens indefinitely, with out a trial. This is a very scary though and I admit, I fell for it. It sounded true. After all, the US seems to be passing more and more questionable bills every day now.

Well, I got to thinking that I never once actually saw the part in this bill, stating that US citizens could be detained indefinitely. So I did some research and read through the bill.

Take a look at what the bill really in section 1032 entitled "Requirement For Military Custody"


(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement 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.


Section 1032

So clearly you can all now see, neither US citizen or Lawful Resident Alien can be detained indefinitely. What we have been seeing and hearing, is a lie being perpetrated by media and citizen alike. Some intentionally, some unintentionally.

But I hope you can all now see, that for once, our rights are not being trampled and that the truth is, US citizens cannot be detained indefinitely with out a trial.

S.1867


ETA: I must admit that after participating in this thread, there has been great debate and I eventually conceded that though it is very unlikely, it is in fact, possible, for US citizens to be detained indefinitely, given the correct circumstances.

Thanks to everyone for helping out, putting up with my questions and clearing up a few confusions I was having.

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

it doesn't matter whether its Americans or not the bill is still hardcore evil.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
It does mean US citizens can be detained. Any citizen that commits any kind of terrorism, specifically 'low level' acts of terrorism can be indefinitely detained because they are now considered to be terrorists.
edit on 16-12-2011 by fordrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
indeed it would, although i wouldn't call it hooplah when an entire nation of people suddenly find themselves possible targets of their own military for the first time.

"Suddenly?" This has been law for over ten years. Surely you've heard of Jose Padilla, Yaser Esam Hamdi, or at least Anwar al-Awlaki. This is absolutely hooplah, based on fundamental misunderstandings of long-standing national defense policy, the government's Constitutional powers, landmark Supreme Court cases, and the actual effect of the FY2012 NDAA (which does nothing more than establish a Congressional oversight mechanism for the Executive Branch's secretive AUMF "determination" process).



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I think everyone is missing the real issue. Should "ANYONE" be detained indefinitely without due process? Would you like China or India, or Pakistan to issue this law?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
indeed it would, although i wouldn't call it hooplah when an entire nation of people suddenly find themselves possible targets of their own military for the first time.

"Suddenly?" This has been law for over ten years. Surely you've heard of Jose Padilla, Yaser Esam Hamdi, or at least Anwar al-Awlaki. This is absolutely hooplah, based on fundamental misunderstandings of long-standing national defense policy, the government's Constitutional powers, landmark Supreme Court cases, and the actual effect of the FY2012 NDAA (which does nothing more than establish a Congressional oversight mechanism for the Executive Branch's secretive AUMF "determination" process).


so it's been defined exactly like it is in NDAA 2012 for ten years?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


You are completely right. There is nothing to see here. If people think this country is moving down the road of Tyranny then they are nothing but a bunch of paranoid delusionals. Isn't it perfectly obvious to these idiots we as Americans are enjoying even more freedom today than yesterday, last month or last year.

Don't they realize that those evil brown people over there in the middle east, throwing rocks at each other, living in caves, are working hard at creating mind numbing attacks to destroy of us all. Do they not realize that soccer moms might sympathize with "those" people and use their six year old daughters to smuggle bombs onto planes and kill everyone. Isn't that obvious? How can people not see the threat? All around us are Americans who want us dead.

I say let the Government have as much power as they need to protect us. What good are your rights if you're dead. We can trust them to do the right thing. Besides, If you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to hide or worry about.

Go Team America!!


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

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

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



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MissSmartypants
 


I believe you are missing the point of "Requirement" totally. The military is not "Required" to detain you indefinitely - it's the other way around.... there are certain "Requirements" for this action to take place at all. One requirement is that the person cannot be a us citizen. Being a US citizen disqualifies you from being to be detained indefinitely.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join