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.

 

ACLU, Tea Party Agree NDAA Could Take Away Your Freedoms

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
It's well past time for people to acknowledge that the NDAA is a threat to America and stop denying that Section 1021 applies to American Citizens on American soil. It's time to realize that the Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate have thwarted the United States Constitution and have essentially committed treason, oh and so has our President.

You cannot tell me that we have such imbeciles in office that they didn't know what the hell they were voting on to pass into law, especially when it was laid out for them by the People, a few Senators and Congresspersons. You cannot tell me that they didn't know what they were doing when they rejected a re-write excluding the provisions. You cannot tell me that they are completely ignorant of a Federal Judge ruling that section 1021 is Unconstitutional.

Americans need to clear the fog from their heads, like yesterday...


A bill passed by Congress and signed into law last New Year's Eveby President Barack Obama has united the extreme right and the extreme left in this country.

The American Civil Liberties Union calls it dangerous, the Tea Party calls it an attack on freedom, and journalists are even suing the president over the National Defense and Authorization Act.

The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the military spending bill; it was like most big spending bills, vital to the continued day to day operation of the armed forces.

But this one contained some provisions that scare people who rarely see the same side of any political issue.

"This scares the living beJesus out of me," said Ed Mahoney who considers himself a constitutional libertarian. He's no fan of the ACLU- but on this issue they agree.



The ACLU says NDAA could permit any president to send the American military to imprison people anywhere in the world, even where there is no armed conflict and no threat to Americans.

Tucked away among 500 pages of spending authorizations is a provision that authorizes the military under the president to indefinitely detain anyone suspected of terrorism, even if they're not charged.

"This is codifying or writing into law power already claimed by the president, said MSU political scientist Dr. Kevin Pybas.

In other words President Obama has already been doing this. But so had President George W. Bush at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But this act allows for Americans not on the battlefield to also be detained without charge.


KSPR.com




posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
What a terrible article. They site one guy's opinion as representative of the 'tea party? Can't say I've ever heard of "Ed Mahoney". How about multiple 'tea party' sources? How about some quotes from those in the House who voted for NDAA but call themselves 'tea party'?



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I believe a new force is rising, and I believe whether or not it organizes and becomes overwhelming will depend on the November elections.

I believe Occupy, and Tea Party, and Libertarians, and old school Blue Dog Southern Democrats, and Constitutionalists, and Ron Paulites, and ex-military, and survivalists, and preppers, and conspiracy theorists, and birthers, and truthers, and the unemployed, and the underemployed, and the upper middle class paying the taxes, and many other types and genre of folks are starting to see that they have more in common than they do in contrast.

People are starting to recognize a common enemy. That common enemy is the corporate oligarchy government. The lobbyists running the representatives. The corporations running the FDA. The UN and WTO running the law makers. The foreign treaties that override the constitution. The illegal fees and hidden taxes that take over 50% of a person's income even before income tax is accounted for!

I believe the tide is rising, and I hope it is quelled by political victories and not just agitated by political losses.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


You mean like my freedom to be hammered and locked up for protesting ?

Brainwashed by propaganda ?

My freedom to have illegal aliens employed to the few jobs that are left ?

My freedom to vote for the criminal I like best ?

My freedom to be taxed relentlessly ?

My freedom not to have good health ?

My freedom to be robbed by the banks ?

My freedom to watch my family go without ?

And on and on and on ?
SnF
edit on 24-5-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


I agree it's not the best article for getting a good sample of opinions but I do think the over all opinion of a large number of groups is that the NDAA is bad for us.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


I agree it's not the best article for getting a good sample of opinions but I do think the over all opinion of a large number of groups is that the NDAA is bad for us.


Totally agree. I just find it odd they only reference one guy to represent 'the tea party'.

Most of those in the House who identify as 'Tea Party' voted FOR NDAA.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 



Most of those in the House who identify as 'Tea Party' voted FOR NDAA.



VERY GOOD POINT! I was extremely disappointed in seeing the results of that vote.

Wiki list of supposed Tea Party politicians.

Compare that list to the Vote Results on NDAA. The Tea Party didn't stick to its roots very well, and many of those "sack the incumbent" platformers now find themselves as unpopular incumbents!! Sack em again!



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I just read that NDAA was passed, by a majority of House Republicans...

But I recall Republicans being in an uproar about Obama signing the

Defense Authorization - But then I read read Obama placed a signing

statement disavowing that portion -

So I am not sure why 222 Republicans voted for this thing, if they are

supposedly against a large government?



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


The Tea Party went through a high-jacking that's why. A bunch of people who claimed to hold Tea Party ideologies ran for office and got elected and then the majority immediately turned around and betrayed the movement that elected them, so yeah as GRA said, fire them again. In fact I think it would be prudent to fire the entire Congress (every seat up for election) and send a loud clear message that we're done with their Bull...but that's getting off topic.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
In fact I think it would be prudent to fire the entire Congress (every seat up for election) and send a loud clear message that we're done with their Bull...but that's getting off topic.


Actually, I think that might be the topic. If regular people, people who have no time for party affiliations, be they from the left or the right or top or bottom, could actually vote with their congressional representatives in mind, instead of just the President, they could really change things fast.

I dont think i will ever happen, mind you, but it'd be huge.



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Federal court enjoins NDAA

What's your take on this?

Not saying anybody is right or wrong here, just posting this to see what you think. Fairly recent, too.

Also, isn't it about time for congress to draw up a new NDAA for 2013, considering this is a yearly thing?



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Flowmaster05
 


Congress largely passed the new NDAA (2013) directly after the judges ruling. Nice huh? It was against the Constitution to pass it into law to begin with and now that there has been a recent ruling declaring Section 1021 unconstitutional, Congress is just going to ignore it and leave it in there anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join