Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Two Four Star Generals write New York Times demanding Obama Veto the NDAA

page: 3
119
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by vjr1113
 

The full story is, it was passed with rider saying US citizens are exempt from detention...but the word is the Obama administration will only pass it if US citizens are included.

The Obama administration wants US citizens to detained without cause or legal representation.




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by vjr1113
 



Calm down and get all the facts.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I find it kind of ironic that this bill, essentially, flies in the face of the conditions established by the "Super Committee." Failure to reach agreement resulted in a 600 billion dollar cut to DoD funding - about a 66% cut.

Which, pretty much, eviscerates the military and puts my job security down the toilet.

And the biggest issue about this bill, is some little rider that re-states what other laws have already established as being within the authority of law enforcement.

Pretty much every prison in America is operating well above its capacity - they work on a revolving door principle (you have to - when you throw people in jail for writing bad checks and walking across the street in the wrong spot). There's not enough places to hold people under suspicion of terrorism for long. Not on any scale that justifies the vast amount of paranoia in these forums.

I mean... really - stop being a bunch of wussies. Train yourself in some form of armed combat as well as unarmed, and take comfort in the fact that you're prepared for when some power-hungry ass is, ultimately, going to come at you from over the hill (doesn't have to be the government or police - could just be the psychotic neighbor).

And pay attention to what really matters... which is that it's a direct counter to the measures set forth by the "Super Committee."

... And like I said... without this bill - I'm out of a job (basically). But you all are paying attention to an, ultimately, inconsequential part of it.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I know John McCain was one of the guys, but I can't remember the other guy.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Wow, Obama treating the people like insignificant ants.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I do not support this legislation.

However, I do not believe that we would have to worry about this in the near future (by worry, I mean worry about this legislation being misused. It's future interpretations of this legislation that people need to be worried about (maybe current ones as well).

The things is, right now the reasoning for using this is most likely to be legitimate. The unit which receives the orders to take someone in would get a little background information on the target. This background information would provide the justification needed to detain the target. That's why the military is going to go with this. When your Joe American the military will want to resist the order to take you in. When you are Joe I'm trying to by WMD (whether that's true or not), they are going to bring you in.

This legislation is most likely to be misinterpreted and misused later on down the line.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


the way to determine the intent of a piece of legislation is by interpreting the literal terms in the most oppressive manner possible, as laws are ostensibly to limit and delineate the power of government. That sovereign authority flows from the people is not in question. It's been affirmed by many courts.

there was an amendment to that bill this year that potentially enables federal officers to detain any person who "commits a belligerent act". It is vaguely worded to allow that interpretation, and it cannot have been otherwise but intentionally. I immediately see that if the two noun phrases that compose the object of that sentence were swapped in position, it would become completely clear which meaning is intended by "person who commits a belligerent act". The lack of clarity is not by accident.
edit on 23-12-2011 by seamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Reaper2137
 


And yet the FAA can do what ever the heck it wants to us.

As common sense as this seems and I applaud those Generals where is the outrage when we can be roughed up and molested by the TSA, thrown off the planes and threatened by attendants... for the good of the country.
edit on 23-12-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by vjr1113
 



Calm down and get all the facts.


Ok, I am feeling pretty calm already. The facts are that most Republicans and some Democrats have voted for it. The only branch that hasn't approved it is the Executive branch. I realize it is is politically dicey to not blame everything bad in the world on Obama, but once again facts and reality get in the way of political correctness.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137
Whats not to bash about Obama? Are we not supposed to Bash a Traitor? I voted for the man, worst mistake of my life but I did it. "Yes WE can" destroy this country, if ever there was a President needed killed for Treason its this man. History will remember that America fell because of him.




Then do you accept YOUR OWN responsibility for making the man President of the Country?
Do you OWN it or are you running scared like a coward?
And do you respect the Office of the President of the US or does that mean Jack to you?

Do you regret your own doing so badly now that you will suggest others take a life THE PRESIDENT OF YOUR FREAKIN COUNTRY??? in order to try and correct your mistake ???

Or will you honor the Office, the Constitution and vote him out like the adult you are, respecting the Country and what it stands for?

Or are you the bitter and crazed hothead who is going to shoot himself in the foot or do something equally or monumentally stupid in the heat of his unrestrained uncontrolled and irrational dangerous anger and unrest? Which is it? Are you a rational man or a crazed beast?


History will remember that America fell? How is it going to fall?
We are going to hand the whole thing to China maybe but that doesn't scare anyone?

You are blaming Obama for something that started with the Patriot Act?
Did you suggest Bush needed to be killed for treason then?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Reaper2137
 

Good for them!

But this article is dated 10 days ago. Why are we only hearing about this now? Has our mass media successfully suppressed this story?

Don't let that happen!

Two Marine generals don't want the powers that Congress wants to grant them to get involved in internal police activities. They think the Constitution is more important!

Shout this news loudly!!



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
This, imo, looks like could be controlled opposition. No, I have no link or internet vetted "proofs".. just an another observer of the grand illusion.

Recall the movie "Network" where one tactic of pacification was to make sure someone out in media land was articulating "your" rage. Expressing your concerns.

It gives people false hope that someone, surely, will do something about it. Then people sit back, do nothing about it themselves, then watch the news & wait.. as days turn into months and the only observable change is from bad to worse.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
This indeed is interesting. But what I want to know is if the Military establishment will be willing to remove everyone in office by force; from those who voted for it on up to the traitor who signs it into law? As citizens we can't revolt without many lives being taken. The Military should be able to restore law and order to this land and hold free elections within a year or even 6 months after removing the traitors from office.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I am glad to see this sort of thing.....but considering the point in transition from democracy to the new form of democratic dictatorship....not enough is being done.....when we are under the iron fist there will be no room for "treason".....



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
As an outsider (non-American and living elsewhere) I cannot believe that this is happening in America. I am flabbergasted.
I believe that I understand the import and meaning behind your Constitution, which is basically that the people are the country's most important asset. All of them, not just the VIP's!
America is being brought down from - from inside - by Americans who have sworn to support the Constitution. Your Founding Fathers would be turning in their graves at this demolition job, which overturns everything they stood for and believed in.
There are a number of things that gravely concern me about this:
1. What is the American government expecting or preparing for that they believe it necessary to take this kind of action against their own?
2. Is this in preparation for a foreign takeover? Wouldn't it be the sneakiest Trojan horse in the history of mankind? Maybe Obama is a ...? OMG! Now, that's thinking outside the square!
3. If not, then you can bet other governments will be following suit very shortly, and my country could potentially use this against us too.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by vjr1113
 

The full story is, it was passed with rider saying US citizens are exempt from detention...but the word is the Obama administration will only pass it if US citizens are included.

The Obama administration wants US citizens to detained without cause or legal representation.

One reading was that the bill in its current form neither exempts nor includes US citizens (leaving it to between the courts and the administration), but the Obama administration wanted (according to some commentators) the US citizens included.

But it will be great ploy for Obama to veto the bill. No one will know for what reasons it was vetoed. If the veto is overridden by the Congress without changes, Obama comes out as the saviour of freedoms having rejected the bill and Congress the real villains behind curtailing freedoms. If the bill is amended to explicitly include citizens and then Obama signs it, it will be apparent to everyone that, that is what was wanted by Obama, but also that the Congress is no less desirous of the same.
edit on 23-12-2011 by Observor because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Wonder if Obama's massive ego will step aside long enough for him to accept the information coming from people who obviously know better than he does. I'm thinking this will just make him stick his nose in the air and do just the opposite of what the Generals say should happen.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
These two generals are smart and are foward thinkers. They both know that one day they will have to retire and their children and thier grandchildren will be the ones on the business end of this NDAA.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Reaper2137
 


If you really are arming you shouldn't be talking about it on ATS.

And you should have fixed your thread title. Two retired generals do not speak for the entire marine corps or military.


The title is as it should be. As is ATS regulations its the title of the news story it has to be the title of the thread.

were you ever military? A retired General still holds the rank, can still give orders and still command if he or she so chooses to. This is just normal, depending on how popular said person was even a retired general can take full command of a unit if he wanted too.



Bull, once you are retired you are done. You are just another civilian. You do not give orders. I have been around the military my whole life, I know how it works. He can only give orders if he is reactivated. He would be "active duty". You have to be "Active Duty" to give orders.
edit on 23-12-2011 by antonia because: rawr
edit on 23-12-2011 by antonia because: opps



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Spikedawg71
 



Also, Republican Senator of South Carolina, Lindsey Graham has spearheading this.....the main vocal box for its support and it passing the Senate.
edit on 03/31/2009 by rgseymour because: To fix small typo.





new topics

top topics



 
119
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join