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: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


What you seem to miss with all your Constitution and Bill of Rights nonsense is that the US is in a state of Emergency and has been so for ten years now.

Since the introduction of the Patriot Act and Emergency Powers, the Constitution/Bill of Rights are suspended.

S.1867. should be read with the Patriot Act in mind, there is no Constitution and you have no Rights, you are a Suspect despite your constant denials and you CAN and WILL be detained.

It's what the FEMA camps are for.

Slow boiled Frog anyone ??

Cosmic..




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyTruth
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Because not being REQUIRED is not the same thing as not being ALLOWED. And that's the quote you're basing your whole argument off of!


But are they allowed? I am just having trouble understanding how they are allowed.

I am looking for help in understanding that and I am getting jumped on.

My stance is that the bill of rights is what does not allow it....

My stance is that even if that ill does allow for it, it does not trump the bill of rights....

Am I wrong?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by Solasis

No, DUDE. you are going in circles. You are repeating yourself to absolutely no avail. You are indeed ignoring everything that is said to refute what you are saying, and simply repeating yourself.

That happens to be a pet peeve of mine, DUDE.



No, I am asking questions and even asking you for your help in answering them... You responded by calling me dude and saying to quit repeating myself.

I will ask my questions until they get answered...


then read my previous post instead of the belligerent ones, and then point out how I'm mistaken, and then we all go from there...



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by eluzhun
 


Okay,I will.


I had meant to do that actually. I saw it and got caught up in the belligerent ones.

Thanks



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Let's say you commit a terrorist act. In some cases, maybe your overseas, I'd be REQUIRED to detain you. But if you're in the US, I wouldn't be REQUIRED. This doesn't mean I can't still do it. Requirement is different than having permission.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
g_s_t, please scroll up and watch the video of Carl Levin, the bill's sponsor in the senate, very clearly stating that when the bill came out of committee the language in 1031 was clear that it DID NOT apply to US Citizens, but the ADMINISTRATION specifically requested that the language be changed so that it DOES apply to US Citizens. I am pretty sure that should answer your "question"

EDIT: it's been reposted - scroll down, not up

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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Well, for the third time, it may seem that way to you, but I am not doing what you accuse me of and I still do not appreciate you doing that.

I have stated that if I am wrong, if it turns out I am wrong, I will apologize and admit it, but at this point in time, I do not think I am.

Do not mistake my disagreeing as not listening, okay? Hear me out too. I am listening to you


Ok, well how can you disagree with the Senators who themselves are saying this applies to citizens in this video.

Ty UdonNiedtuno, I was searching all over ATS for that video!


The fact that the language, which preculded the application of 1031... [the President removed] the very language... that would have said this determination would not apply to US citizens and lawful residence... The very absence of which is objected to by the Senator from Illinois.


I.E. id DOES apply to citizens!!!! The Senate knows it and Senators are objecting to that FACT!!!
edit on 15-12-2011 by pianopraze because: typo



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis


What questions, exactly, are you asking? there is not a single question mark in the chunk of text you are repeatedly copy-pasting.


There have been many questions asked in this thread. Feel free to read it and get back to me



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by ConspiracyTruth
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Because not being REQUIRED is not the same thing as not being ALLOWED. And that's the quote you're basing your whole argument off of!


But are they allowed? I am just having trouble understanding how they are allowed.

I am looking for help in understanding that and I am getting jumped on.

My stance is that the bill of rights is what does not allow it....

My stance is that even if that ill does allow for it, it does not trump the bill of rights....

Am I wrong?


Look, you finally did what we've asked you to do, and actually stated what your question is, rather than just repeating the same thing over and over again.

The fact is that I'm not personally sure if they're allowed to. I'm pretty sure that's the purpose of the bill -- allowing indefinite detention, with special provisions for when it's required. But i haven't read it, nor do i have the time to read it. I shouldn't even have spent the time here that I have so far :-/

The reason I've been getting so angry at you, despite my ignorance of the facts of the case, is that you have so far insisted on confusing allowance and requirement. What the section you've quoted says is that they are not required to detain US Citizens. It says nothing about the allowance which we've been made to understand is an element of the bill.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by eluzhun
 

Okay,my thinking to what you wrote, is that it states certain guidelines for what kind of behaviors can lead to detainment and that the next section is more of a clarification of the people who can be detained.

Hey, again I may be wrong. I am just hoping to get the truth now.

People keep thinking that I am set in my stance, but I am not. A couple days ago, I believed what the majority in this thread does. Then when I made this thread, I was under the impression that US citizens do not apply.

But now, you guys are making me think twice.

So please everyone understand that at this point, I am just trying to figure out the truth. So please do not take my questions personal.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by Solasis


What questions, exactly, are you asking? there is not a single question mark in the chunk of text you are repeatedly copy-pasting.


There have been many questions asked in this thread. Feel free to read it and get back to me


yes, in the thread, there have been. But not in what you've been repeating. which is why that was not an acceptable answer to why you kept repeating yourself.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
---nevermind i think i got confused in what i was saying in this post
edit on 15-12-2011 by Solasis because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
OP, you must understand that the wording in these pieces of legislation are very precise and full of intent. If it does not explicitly state that American citizens are exempt from indefinite detention, then it means that American citizens are indeed subject to indefinite detention. By stating the REQUIREMENT for indefinite detention does not extend to Americans, they are stating, implicitly, that Americans ARE NOT EXEMPT from being subject to indefinite detention under the proper circumstances.

If the intent was to exempt Americans from possible indefinite detention, then it would say "American citizens are exempt from" instead of "the requirement does not extend to". Get it? I'm not sure how more clear I can be about this.
edit on 15-12-2011 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   


(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.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis



Look, you finally did what we've asked you to do, and actually stated what your question is, rather than just repeating the same thing over and over again.

The fact is that I'm not personally sure if they're allowed to. I'm pretty sure that's the purpose of the bill -- allowing indefinite detention, with special provisions for when it's required. But i haven't read it, nor do i have the time to read it. I shouldn't even have spent the time here that I have so far :-/

The reason I've been getting so angry at you, despite my ignorance of the facts of the case, is that you have so far insisted on confusing allowance and requirement. What the section you've quoted says is that they are not required to detain US Citizens. It says nothing about the allowance which we've been made to understand is an element of the bill.


I have been doing that. I just reposted them. Also, it was rude of me to just tell you to find them and get back to me, so I apologize for that.

But I have not insisted on anything(Not intentionally). If it came across that way, I truly apologize because that is not what I am trying to do. I have stated many times within this thread, that I may be wrong and if I am, I will apologize.

It was not long ago that I held the same stance as the majority of posters in this thread.Then I read through the bill... Not all of it though. it is a HUGE bill.

Strictly for clarification, yeah there is one thing that confuses me more than anything. The bill of rights. I mean, how does it not trump this bill, even it it does mean that US citizens can be detained forever.

I am trying to understand at this point how the Bill of Rights is not more powerful than a bill that many agree is unconstitutional.

That is where my confusion comes in. So, simply put, my main question to everyone is, if this bill does allow it,Then what about the right to a trial? How does that not out weigh this bill?

Does that make sense?

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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by ConspiracyTruth
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Because not being REQUIRED is not the same thing as not being ALLOWED. And that's the quote you're basing your whole argument off of!


But are they allowed? I am just having trouble understanding how they are allowed.

I am looking for help in understanding that and I am getting jumped on.

My stance is that the bill of rights is what does not allow it....

My stance is that even if that ill does allow for it, it does not trump the bill of rights....

Am I wrong?


Since 911 the US has been and is in a State of Emergency.

There is no Bill of Rights/Constitution.

Patriot Act.

Cosmic..



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


The Bill of Rights is not more powerful because we have been in a perpetual state of emergency since 09/11/01. Read up on that and you will understand. I'm not going to explain it here because there are numerous other places you can obtain that information.

I must also add that a tyrranical government will generally ignore any rights you think you previously had, and create their own according to what rights they think you should be granted. Remember what Bush said about the Constitution? "It's just a f**king piece of paper."
edit on 15-12-2011 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life


Since 911 the US has been and is in a State of Emergency.

There is no Bill of Rights/Constitution.

Patriot Act.

Cosmic..


Just for clarification, what you are saying is that the bill of rights and constitution are no more because we have been in a state of emergency and because of the patriot act?

Let me do a bit of reading on states of emergency as well as the patriot act and then I will get back to you. I want to know a bit more about each before I reply.

Thanks



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by Solasis



Look, you finally did what we've asked you to do, and actually stated what your question is, rather than just repeating the same thing over and over again.

The fact is that I'm not personally sure if they're allowed to. I'm pretty sure that's the purpose of the bill -- allowing indefinite detention, with special provisions for when it's required. But i haven't read it, nor do i have the time to read it. I shouldn't even have spent the time here that I have so far :-/

The reason I've been getting so angry at you, despite my ignorance of the facts of the case, is that you have so far insisted on confusing allowance and requirement. What the section you've quoted says is that they are not required to detain US Citizens. It says nothing about the allowance which we've been made to understand is an element of the bill.


I have been doing that. I just reposted them. Also, it was rude of me to just tell you to find them and get back to me, so I apologize for that.

But I have not insisted on anything. If it came across that way, I truly apologize because that is not what I am trying to do. I have stated many times within this thread, that I may be wrong and if I am, I will apologize.

It was not long ago that I held the same stance as the majority of posters in this thread.Then I read through the bill... Not all of it though. it is a HUGE bill.

Strictly for clarification, yeah there is one thing that confuses me more than anything. The bill of rights. I mean, how does it not trump this bill, even it it does mean that US citizens can be detained forever.

I am trying to understand at this point how the Bill of Rights is not more powerful than a bill that many agree is unconstitutional.



Now you're showing that you're making another mistake of confusion; you're confusing what "should" be -- the bill of rights SHOULD trump this law -- with what actually is -- the fact that there's a chance that the constitution will be ignored in the execution of this law. In philosophy, we call that the "ought-is" distinction.

The entire Legislative and Executive branches think that this law is going to be able to be enacted. it will be up to the Judicial branch to tell them "no." The question is whether they will or not. And we think that no, we can't trust them to do that. If the entire executive and legislative branches want this to go through...

The constitution isn't simply a magical document. It doesn't stop laws being enforced itself. It's up tot he government -- specifically, the judicial branch -- to obey the constitution and prevent those laws from being enforced.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by ConspiracyTruth
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Because not being REQUIRED is not the same thing as not being ALLOWED. And that's the quote you're basing your whole argument off of!


But are they allowed? I am just having trouble understanding how they are allowed.

I am looking for help in understanding that and I am getting jumped on.

My stance is that the bill of rights is what does not allow it....

My stance is that even if that ill does allow for it, it does not trump the bill of rights....

Am I wrong?



Ahhhh.... ignorance.... its bliss....



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join