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.

 

Single State Defies Obama Detention Plan : Suspend Habeas Corpus & Remove Your US Citizenship

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
by Bob Unruh (WND)
WND EXCLUSIVE Link



When Congress adopted and Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, alarms were raised over the possibility that it would allow the indefinite and rights-free detention of those who are called 'belligerents,' even if they are American citizens.

[color=gold]...


Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. today told WND he has drafted a resolution, which is being circulated among the lawmakers even now, to express opposition to the sections of the NDAA 'that suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.'

[color=gold]'Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act, signed into law on New Years Eve of 2011/(2012), provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military on American soil, without charge, and without right to legal counsel and right to trial,' he explained.

[color=gold]...


He told WND the problem is made worse by the wording of the law. It’s unclear exactly what is a [color=gold]'belligerent' and who will make that determination? Is someone angry at the government over a ticket for an alleged traffic infraction a belligerent?


The entire article is worthy.

We will ALL need to keep this out in the public arena. Talk about it; write about it.

Creating NEW articles/posts with different headlines. SAME theme. NDAA and all related.

Notify those friends, relatives etc... that may NOT be aware of this.

The entire country should be required to know about this NDAA.

You WILL be quizzed or you WILL be detained.

Two weeks? Two years? Two decades... I'm nearly five decades old. YOU?

The youngest in my family is in elementary schools. Yours?
edit on 1·16·12 by DrMattMaddix because: ... I can!!!

edit on 1·16·12 by DrMattMaddix because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I always wondered why these "side" laws always get inserted into un-veto-able legislations.

The main thrust of the bill as a whole was not in question for all practical purposes.

If this was a separate bill, what "support" would have been present ?

Hmmm.

I think also that this section would have been voted down in a national referendum.

The Voters Always Get Hoodwinked by the (s)Legislators



 
8

log in

join