It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PatriotGames2
A lot of those things do seem to be happening in America, just substitute 'Sharia Law' with 'spreading democracy' or 'Corporate mandate'. Some may not happen directly in America, but plenty of those things happen in other countries in the name of America.
Let's fix our own country first, stop the abuse of power and spread of tyranny in the name of democracy and corporate wealth, then we can worry about what others are doing on the other side of the globe.edit on 22-9-2012 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by uwascallywabbit
we must never admit the thin edge of the wedge
or we will fall
Originally posted by MrSpad
It is this kind of stuff that wastes all of our time. Beth din (Jewish law) has been used in the US forever and in the exact same way as Sharia law is. In certain legal cases you are allowed to chose arbitration instead of using the courts themselves. What type of arbitartion is up to you and the other party. In these cases Religous laws are allowed to be followed if agreed upon by the parties involved. Their are limits to it, for example if the judgement breaks US law or is considered excesive they will not be enforced. This has been praticed in the US since the begining. Banning such agreements has been judged unconsititutioal over and over again. So what we have here is simply fear mongering and straight out foolishness. Our very own system of law has its origens in Sharia law based on its influece on english common law.
Obama’s Department of Justice is demanding a federal judge dismiss the injunction with which she sought to uphold the constitutional rights of the American people. On May 16th, federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), striking down those sections of the Act that provide the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights. Under the terms of the Act, Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.” When pressed by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority, government lawyers admitted “…the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists,” admitting that “…even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.”