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: 11
22
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnInFL
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.


Wrong ....

the "covered persons" defines "who" 1031

1032 (a)(1) IN GENERAL uses the words - SHALL hold

.... meaning they must hold - it is mandatory!!

Read it again note the word SHALL


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.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined-- (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.


(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.


Seriously people it is not that hard to read.

Again:

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

Question: what does not extend to US citizens?

Answer: The requirement to detain.

Does this mean they cannot detain? No. It mean they are not REQUIRED to detain US Citizens.

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 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Some things are unforgivable in a democracy. A bill moving through Congress, authorizing the military to imprison American citizens indefinitely, without a trial or hearing, ranks right at the top of that list.

I know - I lived through it on the Patriot Act. When Congress decided to squelch the truth about the CIA's advance warnings about 9/11 and the existence of a comprehensive peace option with Iraq, as the CIA's chief Asset covering Iraq, I became an overnight threat. To protect their cover-up scheme, I got locked in federal prison inside Carswell Air Force Base, while the Justice Department battled to detain me "indefinitely" up to 10 years, without a hearing or guilty plea. Worst yet, they demanded the right to forcibly drug me with Haldol, Ativan and Prozac, in a violent effort to chemically lobotomize the truth about 9/11 and Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence.

Critically, because my legal case was controlled by civilian Courts, my Defense had a forum to fight back. The Judge was an independent arbiter. And that made all the difference. If this law on military detentions had been active, my situation would have been hopeless. The Patriot Act was bad enough. Mercifully, Chief Justice Michael B. Mukasey is a preeminent legal scholar who recognized the greater impact of my case. Even so, he faced a terrible choice - declaring me "incompetent to stand trial," so my case could be killed - or creating dangerous legal precedents tied to secret charges, secret evidence, secret grand jury testimony and indefinite detention - from the Patriot Act's arsenal of weapons against truth tellers - that would impact all defendants in the U.S. Courts.


www.sott.net... erous-Woman-Indefinite-Detention-at-Carswell

The new law would seem to close the loophole that got her out of indefinite detention.

Still think it doesn't apply to whomever they wish it to?

Naiveté is charming only in the very young and when its consequences are trivial.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Everyone is overreacting to the Bill.

It's pretty hilarious though to see them think Obama is going to throw them in camps and kill their families.
These are the same morons who said Bush was going to do the same thing back in 2008...and 2007...and 2006....

I try to ignore them though because you can't convince the blind and delusional.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


It's not often I agree with you.

So star for you.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Hmm, the mods still have not changed the title to fit how I feel now.



My stance has changed, for those who do not know. (There is an edit in the OP)

I do see how it is in fact possible. Unlikely, but possible and now, if I could, I would change my OP even more to reflect that.

This has been a great thread with everyone coming in, adding their own research and working together to come to a conclusion. At least, this was the case as of last night.

As you all know my view point changed during this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, I just want to thank you all, for your part in this thread. Even those who were not quite so civil at times


I understand, it' politics


This was an impressive thread because, well, it's a rare thing to see some ones viewpoint changed this much on ATS.

I call myself gimme_some_truth, because I want the truth about everything.

I would rather hear an ugly truth than a beautiful lie.

I think what I learned was an ugly truth. Something that I suspected. I know the government does crazy things, but after doing lots of research, I changed my mind to what you read in my OP. Then upon more research, well... my viewpoint changed again.

I have enjoyed this thread and I think we all learned a lot. It brought together every ones notes on the subject, opened a lot of eyes and started a great discussion.

So, I say, keep it up. Keep talking, keep digging, keep finding that truth.



Peace and love



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Everyone is overreacting to the Bill.

It's pretty hilarious though to see them think Obama is going to throw them in camps and kill their families.
These are the same morons who said Bush was going to do the same thing back in 2008...and 2007...and 2006....

I try to ignore them though because you can't convince the blind and delusional.


Don't be so near-sighted. When people are overreacting, it's not their fears of them getting detained or what not but the possibility of the future generations suffering through these unconstitutional bills. TPTB do not utilize these powers immediately, these are well thought out and well planned for future reference. For example, one of the biggest downfalls of America was the creation of central bank through Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Fruition of this came much after 1913. Why give more ammo to the government where they see people as just consumers and nothing else? These laws aren't to protect us, the U.S. citizens, from terrorist, it's to protect themselves from us.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
ah well thats ok as long as your not suffering the same fate as others due to your government.

At what point is it ok to detain anyone without trial indefinatley?

so its ok for American gov to ignore the human rights of forigners...well thats ok stop worrying because no americans will get detained LOL!
edit on 16-12-2011 by Scott495 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2011 by Scott495 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Everyone is overreacting to the Bill.

It's pretty hilarious though to see them think Obama is going to throw them in camps and kill their families.
These are the same morons who said Bush was going to do the same thing back in 2008...and 2007...and 2006....

I try to ignore them though because you can't convince the blind and delusional.


Don't be so near-sighted. When people are overreacting, it's not their fears of them getting detained or what not but the possibility of the future generations suffering through these unconstitutional bills. TPTB do not utilize these powers immediately, these are well thought out and well planned for future reference. For example, one of the biggest downfalls of America was the creation of central bank through Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Fruition of this came much after 1913. Why give more ammo to the government where they see people as just consumers and nothing else? These laws aren't to protect us, the U.S. citizens, from terrorist, it's to protect themselves from us.


The point is this conspiracy theory that we're going to end up in FEMA camps is not new and goes way back. It's not going to happen. Hell, I am pretty surprised our country didn't overreact to the point of throwing Muslims in camps after 9/11 like we did with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott495
At what point is it ok to detain anyone without trial indefinatley?

During armed conflict.

Article 20 of the Second Hague Convention (1899): "After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall take place as speedily as possible."

Article 118 of the Third Geneva Convention (1949): "Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities."

Rule 128 of the ICRC's Customary Law database: "Prisoners of war must be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities. Civilian internees must be released as soon as the reasons which necessitated internment no longer exist, but at the latest as soon as possible after the close of active hostilities. Persons deprived of their liberty in relation to a non-international armed conflict must be released as soon as the reasons for the deprivation of their liberty cease to exist."

That's not just anyone, of course, and no one (who has actually read HR 1540) is suggesting that the government can detain anyone. But it can detain Al Qaeda members, in accordance with municipal and international humanitarian law.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Everyone is overreacting to the Bill.

It's pretty hilarious though to see them think Obama is going to throw them in camps and kill their families.
These are the same morons who said Bush was going to do the same thing back in 2008...and 2007...and 2006....

I try to ignore them though because you can't convince the blind and delusional.


Don't be so near-sighted. When people are overreacting, it's not their fears of them getting detained or what not but the possibility of the future generations suffering through these unconstitutional bills. TPTB do not utilize these powers immediately, these are well thought out and well planned for future reference. For example, one of the biggest downfalls of America was the creation of central bank through Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Fruition of this came much after 1913. Why give more ammo to the government where they see people as just consumers and nothing else? These laws aren't to protect us, the U.S. citizens, from terrorist, it's to protect themselves from us.


The point is this conspiracy theory that we're going to end up in FEMA camps is not new and goes way back. It's not going to happen. Hell, I am pretty surprised our country didn't overreact to the point of throwing Muslims in camps after 9/11 like we did with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.


The point is, you never know. Also, you are missing the point with this War on Terror. This war isn't directed towards Muslims. It's directed towards the U.S. citizens...
edit on 16-12-2011 by blackrain17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I would think the guys at the C I A will be very happy to read this.

You do know that bin Laden was a C I A trained asset. Al Quada was a totally operation of the C I A while in Bosnia.

Do you think they ever gave any support toward a terrorist organization???



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Everyone is overreacting to the Bill.

It's pretty hilarious though to see them think Obama is going to throw them in camps and kill their families.
These are the same morons who said Bush was going to do the same thing back in 2008...and 2007...and 2006....

I try to ignore them though because you can't convince the blind and delusional.


Don't be so near-sighted. When people are overreacting, it's not their fears of them getting detained or what not but the possibility of the future generations suffering through these unconstitutional bills. TPTB do not utilize these powers immediately, these are well thought out and well planned for future reference. For example, one of the biggest downfalls of America was the creation of central bank through Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Fruition of this came much after 1913. Why give more ammo to the government where they see people as just consumers and nothing else? These laws aren't to protect us, the U.S. citizens, from terrorist, it's to protect themselves from us.


The point is this conspiracy theory that we're going to end up in FEMA camps is not new and goes way back. It's not going to happen. Hell, I am pretty surprised our country didn't overreact to the point of throwing Muslims in camps after 9/11 like we did with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.


The point is, you never know. Also, you are missing the point with this War on Terror. This war isn't directed towards Muslims. It's directed towards the U.S. citizens...
edit on 16-12-2011 by blackrain17 because: (no reason given)


Ok, we can get into a whole other debate about the war on terror, but we won't. I'll just agree and say yes, we never know but the chances are unlikely. Actually, extremely severely unlikely.

In other words, Obama isn't going to send you to a FEMA camp



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I have to laugh at the OP's first comment.

He seems to have this trust for the United States Government---as if they have boundaries, have never trounced upon our rights before, never lied to us, never abused their power before.

Seriously?

The legislature passes a bill that allows Americans to be detained indefinitely without due process and that's okay with you? In any situation and on any level or any circumstance, that's okay with you?

Really?

Why is this bill even a bill? Why are we even talking about this? Since when does the Government have ther right to take away our BILL OF RIGHTS.

And what? You don't think the NWO is behind this? Who wrote this? Some sweet little elf who wants to protect us all from TERRORISTS? Don't you remember all the rights that have already been taken away from us under the guise of TERRORISM?

Terrorism is the false flag my friend.

But you go back to sleep.

I'll wake you up when it's all over.

And shame on you for posting this kind of crap and confusing people.

WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BILL.
edit on 16-12-2011 by MRuss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


I agree with you. Obama won't send us to the FEMA camps. I'm one of those that believe Obama's just a puppet anyway. But can you imagine if things got worse and instead of OWS it turned out to be Occupy White House and City Halls by millions of people? Things can get ugly.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


I agree with you. Obama won't send us to the FEMA camps. I'm one of those that believe Obama's just a puppet anyway. But can you imagine if things got worse and instead of OWS it turned out to be Occupy White House and City Halls by millions of people? Things can get ugly.



We don't need the government to take dismantle any kind of revolt, we have the media to do that. The OWS movement was completely dismantled and wrecked by the mainstream media since it's corporate owned.

Obama had potential, but he sold this country out to Wall Street, along with building up the American war machine by bombing more of the Middle East.

Even though I disagree with A LOT of what Ron Paul says, he may be our last hope for a bright future.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


if people were required to be detained, we would all be in guantalamo. everyone.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Listen this is a revised version they took the language out of the detaining citizens also so obama can sign it.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Three myths about the detention bill

I'm now seeing posters replying that it's possible but unlikely (I don't believe the FEMA camp stuff, just to be clear). Unlikely is not good enough in my opinion. Impossible is how it should be and we should not accept anything less.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by eywadevotee
Us citizens cannot have mandatory military detainment, though they COULD be detained indefinitely in "cilvilian custody" and "temporarily" detaioned in military custody. The bill is a disgusting disgrace to our Constitution.


No they cannot. Any citizen can be detained, but we have the right to a trial that has not been taking away. We cannot and will not be detained forever, with out a trial.


That's wrong. It's been explained above how your claim is wrong. The bill permits US citizens to be detained indefinitely without trial at the discretion of the president. No Habeas Corpus. No oversight.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Thank you to the mods, for changing the thread title to make it more appropriate,seeing as how my stance has changed some what.

Thank you to each of you for your continuing participation and thanks for putting up with me until the title was changed.

Hopefully that will eliminate the confusion about my stance ( Which has changed) that a couple people were having.

Peace and love.


And now back to your regularly scheduled madness.

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



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join