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.
RT=Russian Times..
Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by LanternOfDiogenes
RT has been documenting it.
yea so what is the big deal? The big deal is, if you want to protest you can not , if you want to go on strike you can not., "OH BS" not so for it is... by your own words
The use of "belligerents" denotes that this is a military document.
"An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action."
so there you have it. This law out laws protesting going on strike or any thing that would interfere with "effecting the ability to go to work or make money" or would... by act... give aid to the enemy, making, and or listing you as an "enemy combatant"
As I see it, The executive Branch is authorized to detain, until the deemed end of a conflict, enemy combatants and belligerents (by definition "civilians" that meet the Executives definition of "supporting terrorism or causing "damage" to property or people, which has just been defined further as "effecting the ability to go to work or make money") which power is given to the Executive Branch in times of War and NATIONAL EMERGENCIES to be reviewed within 90 days of enactment.
Originally posted by spacekc929
It doesn't make sense to me. All Obama had left was his base, and he just alienated every single one of them. If he'd wanted the bill to pass, he could have vetoed it and then had the House and Senate pass it again - God knows they had enough votes. What did he have to gain by signing it? Not looking "weak"? Well now he looks like a flip-flopping loser. He's alienated the entire country at this point, the far right and the far left and everyone else in between. I just simply don't understand what he was thinking by signing the bill.
Goodbye Obama, good luck getting re-elected now that your entire base hates you...
Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Komodo
yes it is required that he signs it or veto's it , if he veto's it, it becomes law by the at of Congruential over ride, if he signs it it become law, it is just a formality, legal one but it is what is... all for show.
Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by PapaKrok
not fear , but the way it could be used ieyea so what is the big deal? The big deal is, if you want to protest you can not , if you want to go on strike you can not., "OH BS" not so for it is... by your own words
The use of "belligerents" denotes that this is a military document.
"An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action."so there you have it. This law out laws protesting going on strike or any thing that would interfere with "effecting the ability to go to work or make money" or would... by act... give aid to the enemy, making, and or listing you as an "enemy combatant"
As I see it, The executive Branch is authorized to detain, until the deemed end of a conflict, enemy combatants and belligerents (by definition "civilians" that meet the Executives definition of "supporting terrorism or causing "damage" to property or people, which has just been defined further as "effecting the ability to go to work or make money") which power is given to the Executive Branch in times of War and NATIONAL EMERGENCIES to be reviewed within 90 days of enactment.
edit on 20-12-2011 by bekod because: edittingedit on 20-12-2011 by bekod because: editting
Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by dubiousone
are you sure there will be an election? this becomes law what does that do?you do know the laws become null and void, and that Obama could by the act stay POTUS.
edit on 20-12-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by CORN IS NUTS
reply to post by daddio
Wow! That is all I can say Wow; the 1st link makes so much sense!
And as stated in the paper; It is not easy (to reclaim your state citizenship). Although I for one am going to start the process. The overlying issue is; do I have time to complete it before it is too late?
We shall see.......
Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by PapaKrok
Why don't you do as the other member did and READ the DAMN links I provided. GOVERNMENT CAN NOT legislate TO...GOT THAT? They CAN NOT legislate TO the people, ONLY FOR THE PEOPLE.
The Constitution means NOTHING to HUMAN BEINGS, we are endowed by OUR creator...NOT by the government. The Bill of Rights MEANS NOTHING as you have naturally born rights. The Civil Rights movement was a joke to get all the rest of the idiots "employed" or brought under the federal laws.
How dumb has this world become. I think I need to leave it behind.
Originally posted by WilliamTheRed
According to the House Armed Services Committee website and NDAA 2012 HAS NOT been passed it is still being argued. Why don't you try doing a little fact checking before you spout this gargbage?
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 is a controversial bill that has been passed by both houses of Congress separately, and a final version approved by the Senate on December 15, 2011.[1][2][3] Though the White House[4] and Senate sponsors[5] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act legislatively codifies[6] the President's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X, Subtitle D, SEC 1031(a-e) of the bill.[7] Because those who may be held indefinitely include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, and because that detention may be by the military, the Act has received critical attention by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and media sources.