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: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
This is a very badly written bill. Here you have two sides debating the actual meaning and intent of this bill. What happens if your neighbor calls up the FBI and they say I think a terrorist is living next door. They come and sweep you up in the middle of the night. The way this bill is written, you can be held indefinitely until the war on terror is over.




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


No no, don't apologize
And what I said in response to the flag thing, was more of a joke, just poking fun at myself as a writer


At the end of the day, as my username indicates, I want the truth, no matter what that be. ( I would rather hear an ugly truth, than a beautiful lie)

But for what it is worth, I do get why people are not relaxed and I admit, I am not exactly relaxed myself. I have been on both sides of the debate So I can understand where both sides are coming from.

I am hoping that this thread does put the debate to rest, one way or another and that at the end of the day, we can relax. But I admit, it's not time to relax until an agreement has been reached by both sides here.

So, for what that is worth.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


You FELL for it? That's your statement?

There's nothing to "FALL FOR," I've read the language and what it means. Just because YOU decided it was something else other than what it ACTUALLY IS, doesn't mean that its not written in "PLAIN ENGLISH."

Some people...



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Destiny777
 


You should read the full thread and the edit I made to my OP. My stance has changed a bit.


Hey, but for what it is worth, lots of people have read it and lots of people have interpreted it different ways. So, My word is not final and neither is yours.

I have conceded to the possibility and frequently stated through out this thread that I may have been wrong and am just hoping to find answers.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some people indeed huh?


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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by wardk28
This is a very badly written bill. Here you have two sides debating the actual meaning and intent of this bill. What happens if your neighbor calls up the FBI and they say I think a terrorist is living next door. They come and sweep you up in the middle of the night. The way this bill is written, you can be held indefinitely until the war on terror is over.


That's simply not true. you couldn't just point fingers. The army would have no reason to believe your accusation.

The real threat would be if the government decided that someone had to be gotten rid of, they wouldn't have to prove any connection until after the war on terror. Not individual citizens, but the government and military, would be the ones with the power to say "I think your neighbor's a terrorist."

I don't think this is going to happen, because I still have a little bit of faith in actual events. But that's the worst that could happen.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by Destiny777
 


You should read the full thread and the edit I made to my OP. My stance has changed a bit.


Some people indeed huh?


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


Just because a bunch of people may have, or may not have decided on the language of the document written, doesn't change the fact that constitutional LAWYERS "WHO KNOW WHAT THEY"RE DOING," are currently working on this because of its implications. To me, its amazing when an arm-chair specialist will decide that he/she has figured out the inner-workings of "The bill," and then chooses to translate it for their own.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Destiny777
 


Yet Obama was a professor of Constitutional law and here he is about to sign this bill... Go figure huh? Some lawyers think it is legal, some don't. Some politicians think it is legal, some don't. Again, my word is not final and neither is yours.

Hey,just because some one decided that their interpretation was the right one, does not make it so...Right?


So who is this armchair specialist? Me? No. Not me. I am no specialist at all. But I appreciate the compliment. I have my opinions and interpretations which have changed quite a bit through out this thread.... You should have a full look at the thread, because you don't seem to be fully aware of my stance.

Again, I already conceded that it is possible and have said many times that I may be wrong and am hoping to find answers...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 15-12-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Solasis
 


Are you sure about that? Remember those ads that came out a few years ago about getting Americans to report one another? The government have been putting these building blocks in place for the last 10 years.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


hahahaha they fooled you



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sam_inc
 


Hmmm.... I encourage you to read the full thread, because apparently you are unaware of my stance on this issue...

It has changed you know.... ( I admit I am not sure how you missed it, considering the OP has been edited)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sounds like you fooled yourself.

But thank you very much for the reply, even though you are misinformed on my stance.

I wont laugh at you though.

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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 


You are missing something that is not entirely true. They can hold you longer on weekends. Say if you were arrested on Friday night the 72 hours they can hold you doesn't start until Monday.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 





Some people indeed huh?


Well as for me I'm impressed. SnF
You have shed a lot of light on a very pressing issue, for most of us at ATS and that's at the very least.
This bill for me, is intentionally worded to be at least as vague as it is and that is at least as important as anything else in the bill. The fact that it is hard to reason one way or another is simply a testimony to
the obscure .....tactics for lack of a better term. Thank you Truth.
edit on 15-12-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I think that everyone should read this thread. check out the PDF's and all the links provided by the Op and others who posted to this thread. It tells a strange tale and it's true. The law that is being talked about in this thread along with any other created by "The United States "government is meaningless.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 12/15/2011 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Solasis
 


You're not. That is actually a recognized tenet of international law with regard to POW/Enemy combatants. So long as hostilities persist, the country that captures enemy combatants can hold onto them until hostilities cease.

In the case of AQ, since the Military commissions act labels them unlawful enemy combatants, and unlawful enemy belligerents, they are not entitled to civilian trials on US soil for criminal acts due to the danger of them rejoining enemy forces and committing further terrorist attacks. They do get military tribunals. Which is just fine with me.

Many of them have been released through these tribunals either to host countries, countries of origin, or back to places like Afghanistan for trial and detention there under the control of Afghan authorities.

There's a lot of hyperbole surrounding this here on ATS because although ATS members are supposed to deny ignorance, they instead deny facts and perpetuate BS in order to satisfy the doom/conspiracy fetish. I'm not saying this applies to you only that it is a prevalent modus operandi around here.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sam_inc
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


hahahaha they fooled you


HAHAHA seems like you're fooled by any doom fetishist that confirms your suspicions with or without merit.
edit on 15-12-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Thank you


And yeah, that is something I am noticing as well. the wording is vague enough that it does leave it open to interpretation and that ends up being a problem. A law that is open to interpretation is also open to manipulation.

So, it's that possibility of manipulation, that possibility that if pushed it could be interpreted in a way that allows for unconstitutional things to happen. That does scare me.

Granted, I think it is unlikely, that the US will start locking up citizens indefinitely, and feel certain that it wont happen...but still... The fact that it can be interpreted in so many ways and has.... that makes me a bit nervous..

If that makes sense.... I don't think it will happen, but the realization that it is so open for interpretation and therefore, potential manipulation... I understand the concern.
edit on 15-12-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


A bill like this has many reference points. It's language is not cut and dry.

When you see things like "as defined by USC 110.100" then you have to look up that definition in order to figure out what is actually being said.

This law does not worry me in any way.

You do not have to worry, as many on ATS do, about someone in uniform kicking down your door for posting something like "AQ is cool man. 9/11 was good". The only way to get in trouble for something like that is if you followed it up with "paypaling" AQ some money or providing weapons, or actively aiding the enemies of the US against US troops, property, or citizens.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Yeah, see that makes sense. Like I said, the writing of the bill is vague enough that people are making all kinds of interpretations and that does make me wonder just how much that opens it up to manipulation though.

I mean, do not get me wrong, I know that The military is not going to be kicking my door down. But at the same time, I do understand the concern people are having.

If that makes sense. I hope it does. If not, I apologize. I have a head ache, which is not helping.
edit on 15-12-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Solasis
 


1031 relates to the "Disposition Under Law of War" and includes this clause


(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.


1032 relates to the "CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR."

The two sections refer to the same people or detainees. The only difference is how they are to be handled prior to and during "Disposition".
edit on 15-12-2011 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 





A law that is open to interpretation is also open to manipulation.


You may have yourself a quote. I feel this is the most pertinent thread on ATS at the moment and Truth, you
know very well how I feel about the psychos running the asylum. I may come off a lil paranoid sometimes,
but to quote Phage, " Am I paranoid enough ".




top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join