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.
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!
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...
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
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.
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.
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?
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
(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.
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.
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?
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..
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.
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?