Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

White House demands military prisons for Americans under NDAA

page: 2
49
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Not if my girl, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, has anything to say about it!



Military Detention Law Blocked by U.S. Judge in New York


www.bloomberg.com...


A federal judge permanently blocked enforcement of a U.S. law that opponents claim may subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism.


And I agree with you that these riots reek of conspiracy and especially now with this recent RT article. Btw, any MSM outlets reporting this besides RT? This is why I love RT, they talk about what western MSM doesn't, for the most part. As far as riots in the US by protesting Muslims goes, I wouldn't worry if I was Obama because clearly SWAT and riot police do a fine job as it is. If any Muslims wanna give them a go by all means but I wouldn't wanna face tear gas, rubber bullets, tazers, mace lots and lots of mace, dogs, fire hoses, nets (they use nets right?), and of course the LRAD



Does the Whitehouse have no faith in state police departments?
edit on 17-9-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Did anyone else find it strange that there were no violent protests about the "movie" in the U.S.?
With all the millions of muslims I thought they would have had some reaction.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
Now the plan seems to be coming into view. All of the outrage in the ME over that movie has been purposely manufactured. Those incidences of violence are going to be staged on US soil next and Obama is in a hurry to strengthen the outrageous powers afforded to him under NDAA so he can begin the round up.




Very funny you exaggerate in this way...

It was the GOP the decided to keep the Indefinite Detention Clause .

All but 19 GOP members voted to keep indefinite detention, that is not the White Houses'
fault.



This morning, the House voted down the Smith-Amash amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would have prohibited the government from indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens without trial. A vote of 182-237 struck down the bipartisan Amendment that Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) introduced. Only 19 Republicans, compared to 163 Democrats, supported the bill.


www.alternet.org...



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheGreatDivider
 


You do make a good point. Let's review, I think it's safe to say every Middle Eastern country experienced violet protests? Same goes for Australia. What about Europe & Asia?




posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
amazing how many there still think they wont be detained by their own government ... or just disappeared ..... alot of people in for a very rude awakening to reality of just how corrupt.. oppressive and evil the u.s government is...



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
It's too bad that the party that opposes Obama is actually the party that

is advocating for these expanded powers...

Why don't you Obama critics start off by cleaning your own ranks???

You have a lot more control there



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




DHS is also starting a new program that will promote citizens turning in other ‘suspicious’ citizens in an effort to protect us from domestic terrorist attacks and keep us safe.



There is so much potential for abuse in something like this. The neighbor who hates my cats, or is jealous of my car or my looks or whatever could cook up a little revenge with unfounded allegations.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by thepresident
 



Very funny you exaggerate in this way... 

It was the GOP the decided to keep the Indefinite Detention Clause .


If you'd actually read the entire OP you'd see that it is the White House pushing for a stay on the recent decision against NDAA. 

I don't disagree that there is plenty of blame to go around. NDAA passed with overwhelming support from both parties. I don't try to hide that reality. In fact, when Ryan was named VP I made a thread about his vote for NDAA. 
edit on 17-9-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
Now the plan seems to be coming into view. All of the outrage in the ME over that movie has been purposely manufactured. Those incidences of violence are going to be staged on US soil next and Obama is in a hurry to strengthen the outrageous powers afforded to him under NDAA so he can begin the round up.

White House demands military prisons for Americans under NDAA


The White House has asked the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals to place an emergency stay on a ruling made last week by a federal judge so that the president’s power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge is reaffirmed immediately.



“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran tells Hedges. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”



It’s quite obvious what we have to look forward to, folks. It’s coming very soon to a neighborhood near you!


Seabag I don't quite get you man...

here you are posting this and saying this



All of the outrage in the ME over that movie has been purposely manufactured. Those incidences of violence are going to be staged on US soil next and Obama is in a hurry to strengthen the outrageous powers afforded to him under NDAA so he can begin the round up.


yet fail to understand the stance that the Iranian "nuclear" threat could too be manufactured and for the same exact reasons...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I mean which propaganda do we bite on and which do we spit out?

Logically both beliefs you have about the ME situation seem to be conflicting...

Or have you turned over a new leaf and consider that the lies are possibly coming from the US and Israel?

you sir are confusing me...


edit on 17-9-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Your source RT.com is questionable:
www.dailymotion.com...=xahrri

RT is a 24/7 English-language news channel. From our central Moscow headquarters and bureaus all over the world, we are set to show you how any story can be another story altogether


Any other sources for this? Everything I found linked back to RT. Anybody find a different source?

It would be sad to think that the only ones reporting this are the Russians if it is a true
story.
edit on 9/17/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Oh, I know, believe me I know, I am not a fan of the corporate dictatorship that is running the nation today, I know also that they are waiting for a good excuse to bring back the domestic terrorism bill

But at the same time, I will be one of the first to scream if Islamic fundamentalist will start destroying our cities in protest.

I guess we may have to wait and see.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by thepresident
 


Exactly, we most thank them for the antipatriot act, the worst and most damaging bill against America and the constitution.

But as usual one party in power just complement the other when comes to oppressing the nations population.

edit on 17-9-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheGreatDivider
 


Because it is NOT about the movie, never was. Red Herring.

These protests and violent terrorist acts were planned prior.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TheGreatDivider
 


I wonder also, this kind of makes me worry about what is going on in the US, after all it is freedom of speech what we are trying to defend, a peaceful protest is by not means a retaliation or call to violence but exercising the same rights that every American of none Muslim believe have.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
First person they should arrest and detain is Obama himself.

Obviously he wants this in place to have enough wiggle room to abuse the law and violate our constitution. He wants to arrest people before they commit a crime. Well, how about arresting Obama before he abuses this piece of legislation?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Did everyone forget already that Obama's administration threatened to cut off military pay if the NDAA wasn't passed?

AND Obama refused to sign it if the detention clause was taken out?

He was holding the military and their families over a shark tank to get this thing passed.

How soon we forget what really happened.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider
Did anyone else find it strange that there were no violent protests about the "movie" in the U.S.?
With all the millions of muslims I thought they would have had some reaction.


There's nothing like good, old-fashioned Manufactured Outrage (TM), eh? That sort of thing is never a 'We the People' moment. For whatever reason, there was no purpose for attempting to manufacture that outrage here in the US.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


There's no need to apologize for the majority of clueless (or sinister) politicians who don't read what they sign. That kind of practice was running so rampant that Ron Paul implemented the Sunlight Rule. Just because a majority of corrupt clueless politicians voted Aye means nothing in this day and age.


Sunlight Rule

H.Res. 216, 2009-03-05, originally H.Res. 709, 2006-03-02. Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that Members have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will be voted upon. Prohibits votes on legislation from occurring until ten days after its introduction, with the intent of giving lawmakers enough time to read bills before voting on them; allots 72 hours for House members and staff to examine the contents of amendments. Paul charged his fellow legislators with voting for the Patriot Act in 2001 without reading it first; more than 300 pages long, it was enacted into law less than 24 hours after being introduced.[56]



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepresident
It's too bad that the party that opposes Obama is actually the party that

is advocating for these expanded powers...

Why don't you Obama critics start off by cleaning your own ranks???

You have a lot more control there


Oh, this is COMPLETELY bi-partisan in nature. NDAA was drafted by Carl Levin (D) and John McCain (R). Obama SPECIFICALLY made them add the indefinite detention part. Make no mistake about that.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
This needs to happen...

Do you really think they would be able to round up Muslims like they did to the Japanese in WWII without a law stating they can?

Times have changed but the operations of war have not.

It will be for their own protection.....






top topics



 
49
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join