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.

 

Is Our Leadership About To Commit Treason?

page: 5
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 




The government/leadership, cannot be held for treason.

The laws only apply to the people governed and for those who fall out of line in government..

once you understand this.. everything they do makes perfect sense.




posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by AlienScience
 



The "War on Terror" is a tag line, it's not an official declaration of war...for real?


Is the NDAA a tag line? Is watching your family getting groped at an airport a tag line???? Is having the NSA spy on citizens a tag line also?????

For REAL?????

Bottom line, according the War powers act, any act of war without the approval of Congress is at the minimum, "an impeachable" act! Whether or not it is treason, I really don't care at the moment.


edit on 28-8-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)


Does the NDAA or the TSA define who is or who isn't an enemy? Neither you nor the OP has answered that yet, who defines who the enemy is? And is the "enemy" always the enemy, or is it situational?

The War Powers act only requires the President to notify congress of use of military force and limits the President of having troops on the ground for 60 days before getting additional approval. The war powers act doesn't cover missile strikes or air strikes.

And nope, even violating the war powers act isn't treason...the war powers act has nothing to do with treason.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
It may be world category, all time crimes against humanity, if the rumors prove true.

AMERICANS trafficking AMERICAN SAMs to it enemies (400 through Bengazi) for the purpose of shooting down AMERICAN manned aircraft to foster outrage and use it to go to war. Drag in Iran and North Korea as co-conspirator "terrorists". Kill millions so the US can kill the people they owe the national debt to, thus cancelling the US debt because their all dead. (or use the "fog of war" to cook the books)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny
It may be world category, all time crimes against humanity, if the rumors prove true.

AMERICANS trafficking AMERICAN SAMs to it enemies (400 through Bengazi) for the purpose of shooting down AMERICAN manned aircraft to foster outrage and use it to go to war. Drag in Iran and North Korea as co-conspirator "terrorists". Kill millions so the US can kill the people they owe the national debt to, thus cancelling the US debt because their all dead. (or use the "fog of war" to cook the books)


That second to last, "..kill the people they owe the national debt to,.." sounds somewhat
grisly until one realizes the debt is owned to usurers and counterfeiters... not us or any
legitimate government. Most unfortunately those most culpable are the most invulnerable.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 



The enemy remains Al Qaida who is more than a time to time ally of Syrian rebels.


But they aren't the rebels and the rebels are not our enemy.

So now you are implying that we can't come to the aid of a group of people if Al Qaeda has also aided them in the past? Furthermore, you are saying to come to those peoples aid...even if they are getting slaughtered by chemical weapons (which may or may not be true) is treasonous. Not because they are our enemy, but because they have been assisted by our enemy. Even further, you are saying that we can't strike a country, who is currently fight a group that isn't our enemy, but has been aided by our "enemy"....and if we do so, it is treasonous.

I'm not going to even start on having you define the "overt act" that the Constitution lays out.


Now worse than that lets say the UN finds that chemical attacks are rebel generated, then this government has abetted what they refer to as WMD attacks.


Do you know what abetted means?


1. To approve, encourage, and support (an action or a plan of action); urge and help on.

2. To urge, encourage, or help


So how would striking Syria in response to what we think is chemical weapons use have abetted the Rebels in using chemical weapons?



Why are you having such a hard time grasping what really is just about the most cut and dried example of treason ever presented?


Because I am logical and understand the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience



Well, you are wrong...I wouldn't be a traitor even if that were true.


It really depends on who you ask today and who is running things tomorrow. Its my wish that constitutionalists run things tomorrow rather than what we have today which is corrupt by any means of the word.


You see, you don't follow the Constitution that clearly defines what a traitor is. You aren't following it in your OP with a ridiculous claim that a military strike against a country that is in a civil war with a group that may have been assisted by Al Qaeda is treason.


There is no "may have been" Al Qaida is known to be operational within the rebel ranks, I have no question there nor should you, that you minimize their involvement on this board speaks volumes.


For arguments sake, say I was a paid government agent posting here to attempt to sway opinion. Does that put me at war with the United States? Do you know what the SCOTUS has said about interpreting what "at war" or "levying war" against the United States? I doubt you do. Or what "enemy" would I be comforting by being paid by the government to post on the internet?


The courts of late are just as corrupt as the current government, conspiracy says the NSA has the goods on them all and decisions are no longer independently made so at this point I'm sure all would be absolved anyway, however as the pendulum swings this may change back to what is meant by "justice" in the long run. Historically using the French for example and their treatment of collaborators after WW2 might be more in order, guess it was there version of tarring and feathering.



You see, people like you who wrap yourself in the flag and pound your chest with the Constitution rarely understand it or even know what is it in. It is apparent you don't know what is in the Constitution since in your OP you were posting US Code and claiming it was from our Constitution. What does it say about the future of our republic when so called defenders of the Constitution don't even know the difference between it and the US Code?


I am not wrapped in the flag, far from it the past 40 years of BS that's happened, The code was quoted from the article in the OP and is a legal definition written into law by congress defining Treason and you know it, prevaricating between the constitutional clause and US code is a straw man argument juxtaposed to confuse others - all I can say is shame on you for doing so.


So pardon me if I don't take you seriously when you say you are offended by people who go against the Constitution.


Pardon me if don't believe you support the entire document, only the parts you like that further an agenda.


One thing that offends me are people who claim to support the Constitution but have not taken the time to read it, let alone understand it.


I am equally offended by those who interpret it to their own design by adding or subtracting meaning that is not there. It was written in plain language for the average citizen to understand, the bastardization of legalese has neutered the citizenry as to knowing their true power and rights.


I hate to ruin your day, but you are living in a dream.

Bengazi is a non-story and if we do end up striking Syria, there is zero possibility that Obama will be charged with treason.


I have to hope true patriots still embedded within the government will recognize this treason and act accordingly, yes it is a hope but there are those of us who still believe in doing the right thing unlike your ilk who either support this crap or stand by silently and let it continue.



But for arguments sake, let's give you the power to make that decision...who else will be charged with treason? Will anyone in Congress that supports it? Will the military personnel involved in the strike be charged as well?


The non-partisan answer is yes - all should be held accountable, the executive branch, yes - congressional supporters, yes - military officers who follow unconstitutional orders that are illegal by their very nature, yes.

For historical context refer to Nuremburg trials



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by AlienScience
 



The "War on Terror" is a tag line, it's not an official declaration of war...for real?


Is the NDAA a tag line? Is watching your family getting groped at an airport a tag line???? Is having the NSA spy on citizens a tag line also?????

For REAL?????

Bottom line, according the War powers act, any act of war without the approval of Congress is at the minimum, "an impeachable" act! Whether or not it is treason, I really don't care at the moment.


edit on 28-8-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)


Does the NDAA or the TSA define who is or who isn't an enemy? Neither you nor the OP has answered that yet, who defines who the enemy is? And is the "enemy" always the enemy, or is it situational?

The War Powers act only requires the President to notify congress of use of military force and limits the President of having troops on the ground for 60 days before getting additional approval. The war powers act doesn't cover missile strikes or air strikes.

And nope, even violating the war powers act isn't treason...the war powers act has nothing to do with treason.



Defining the enemy is a straw man, defining a treasonous act by this administration is the subject - the ONLY subject presented by the OP, can the prognosticator answer the subject or will the dance around the issue continue?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by AlienScience
 



The "War on Terror" is a tag line, it's not an official declaration of war...for real?


Is the NDAA a tag line? Is watching your family getting groped at an airport a tag line???? Is having the NSA spy on citizens a tag line also?????

For REAL?????

Bottom line, according the War powers act, any act of war without the approval of Congress is at the minimum, "an impeachable" act! Whether or not it is treason, I really don't care at the moment.


edit on 28-8-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)


Does the NDAA or the TSA define who is or who isn't an enemy? Neither you nor the OP has answered that yet, who defines who the enemy is? And is the "enemy" always the enemy, or is it situational?

The War Powers act only requires the President to notify congress of use of military force and limits the President of having troops on the ground for 60 days before getting additional approval. The war powers act doesn't cover missile strikes or air strikes.

And nope, even violating the war powers act isn't treason...the war powers act has nothing to do with treason.


The war powers act has no bearing on whether or not support of Syrian rebels allied with Al Qaida constitutes an act of treason by the administration



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by Phoenix
 


Who decides who our enemies are?

Are the Germans still our enemies? The Russians? The Chinese?

This is quite silly.


I agree, the point you are attempting to make is silly. You're trying to compare nations with disembodied terrorist cells. Al Qaida isn't a country, they're a collective of insane asshat fundamentalists whose only reason for existing as a group is war against "infidels."



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by Phoenix
 




But they aren't the rebels and the rebels are not our enemy.


Who are they then? Friends, or freedom fighters? Who are their allies and supporters? What is their aim? Who supplied the weapons and money? Who the heck really started that rebellion? and why is an AL Qaida supported organization supported by our government? I'd like a logical answer to each of these questions beginning in Bengazi - it is no secret that Bengazi was a US operation providing heavy weapons to these people.


So now you are implying that we can't come to the aid of a group of people if Al Qaeda has also aided them in the past? Furthermore, you are saying to come to those peoples aid...even if they are getting slaughtered by chemical weapons (which may or may not be true) is treasonous. Not because they are our enemy, but because they have been assisted by our enemy. Even further, you are saying that we can't strike a country, who is currently fight a group that isn't our enemy, but has been aided by our "enemy"....and if we do so, it is treasonous.


First off it not in the past nor is it time to time nor is it just a little aid that Al Qaida is providing, they are side by side, arm in arm in cahoots so quit minimizing their role in Syria - people know better than that. Yes it is treasonous to support either side in this conflict. We have no business there at all.


I'm not going to even start on having you define the "overt act" that the Constitution lays out.


Anyone that can add two plus two can figure that out, but there are those educated under the new system that may have trouble with logic as two plus two can be three or five and still be correct on the test.


Do you know what abetted means?


1. To approve, encourage, and support (an action or a plan of action); urge and help on.

2. To urge, encourage, or help



Yes, most consider that to mean "help" or "aid" or "support" so yup I agree wholeheartedly with the definition provided.


So how would striking Syria in response to what we think is chemical weapons use have abetted the Rebels in using chemical weapons?


There is much discussion on the board and in media as to whom is to blame for chemical weapons use, pardon the pun but that issue is still up in the air. Either way the administration has committed treason at this point.



Because I am logical and understand the Constitution.


In your wise opinion not necessarily shared by many on this thread sir.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I notice still no one has posited any kind of what I would call a "legal" reason why Karl Denninger at Market Ticker was wrong in pointing out the administrations treasonous activities surrounding the Syrian rebellion vis a vis its support direct or indirect of elements of Al Qaida a declared enemy of the United States used to justify the police state tactics domestically against its citizenry.

Excuses, denigration, calling the messenger names, tactics of thread derailment and finally throwing potential insults were all used in an effort to change the subject.

But none against have actually addressed the real subject, have they? That's interesting and meaningful in and of itself.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I don't care if I'm breaking forum rules;

Yes, Our Leadership is about to commit treason! And no one will do anything to stop this illegal Commander and Theif.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Visit this thread for discussion on the Uk's Independent article posted on the OP of this discussion, great point made there to, add much to the subject,

Independant article says Obama supports Al Qaida
edit on 28-8-2013 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I guess its official - WE ARE AL QAEDA.
We are now declaring war on ourselves (officially)
Quite the astounding feat of leading ourselves in circles, isn't it?
We wonder why cognitive dissonance is today's leading mental illness.

Treason is nothing new to this administration or many before it.
Betraying their corporate masters would be a far worse crime.
edit on 28-8-2013 by Asktheanimals because: added comment



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
The interest biased govt always act according to treason unless there is no opportunity



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
In the span of 1 decade we went to fighting AQ to aiding and abetting them.We truly have messed up 'leadership'.


Technically, we funded them and provided them with weapons a few decades prior to that. They are using those weapons now to fight us in the region. For-profit warfare, lol.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 





Technically, we funded them and provided them with weapons a few decades prior to that. They are using those weapons now to fight us in the region. For-profit warfare, lo


Technically speaking other countries funded them, but the US get' all the blame.

Hell let's take a stroll through history shall we ?


Al-Qaeda (/ælˈkaɪdə/ al-KY-də; Arabic: القاعدة‎ al-qāʿidah, Arabic: [ælqɑːʕɪdɐ], translation: "The Base" and alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida) is a global militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden in Peshawar, Pakistan,[19] at some point between August 1988[20] and late 1989,[21] with its origins being traceable to the Soviet War in Afghanistan


Al Aqaeda

Oh damn says right there BIn LAden created AQ in Pakistan.After the Soviet withdrawl.

Gasp.


Kind puts the kabosh on the 'US created, the US funded them doesn't it ?

Oh look here is some more :


Some financing for al-Qaeda in the 1990s came from the personal wealth of Osama bin Laden.[63] By 2001 Afghanistan had become politically complex and mired. With many financial sources for al-Qaeda, Bin Laden's financing role may have become comparatively minor. Sources in 2001 could also have included Jamaa Al-Islamiyya and Islamic Jihad, both associated with Afghan-based Egyptians.[64] Other sources of income in 2001 included the heroin trade and donations from supporters in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.[63] A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.[65]


Oh look there SAUDI ARABIA, and KUWAIT, and EGYPT. too.

Gonne love this next bit:


The best-known mujahideen were the various loosely aligned Afghan opposition groups, which initially rebelled against the government of the pro-Soviet Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) during the late 1970s. At the DRA's request, the Soviet Union brought forces into the country to aid the government. The mujahideen fought against Soviet and DRA troops during the Soviet War in Afghanistan and were supported by United States' assistance


What's that ?

Mujahideen ?

That's not AQ because AQ was FORMED AFTER THE US LEFT AFGHANISTAN.

Pay Attention:


Many Muslims from other countries assisted the various mujahideen groups in Afghanistan. Some groups of these veterans have been significant factors in more recent conflicts in and around the Muslim world. Osama bin Laden, originally from a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia, was a prominent organizer and financier of an all-Arab Islamist group of foreign volunteers; his Maktab al-Khadamat funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the Muslim world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi and Pakistani governments.[38] These foreign fighters became known as "Afghan Arabs" and their efforts were coordinated by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam.


Mujahideen


People need to stop pushing DISINFORMATION.

There are a lot of cooks in that kitchen anyone putting that ALL on the US is pushing intellectual dishonesty.


edit on 29-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
If George W. Bushít wasn't held accountable for the 100,000+ Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers he sentenced to death in search of the "WMD's", then there isn't even a snow flake's chance that accusation of treason will stick to the current U.S. administration.

For all intense and purposes, they can do absolutely anything they like. You people give them this power when you vote and do not vote every four years.

Those with biggest guns call the shots. 'Twas always thus and always thus will be.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Not for the first time.

The "freedom fighters" in Libya were also al Qaeda. According to the U.S.military's own reports.

"NATO Using Al Qaeda “Rat Lines” to Flood Syria With Foreign Terrorists"
By Tony Cartalucci
Global Research, October 26, 2012

www.globalresearch.ca...


... US Army’s West Point Combating Terrorism Center report, “Al-Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq.” The report definitively exposed a regional network used by Al Qaeda to send fighters into Iraq to sow sectarian violence during the US occupation. This exact network can now be seen demonstrably at work with NATO support, overrunning Libya and now Syria. The terrorists in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi that US Ambassador Stevens was arming, is described by the 2007 West Point report as one of the most prolific and notorious Al Qaeda subsidiaries in the world.



Clearly, the US military and the US government were both well aware of the heavy Al Qaeda presence in Cyrenaica since as early as 2007. When violence flared up in 2011, it was clear to many geopolitical analysts that it was the result of Al Qaeda, not “pro-democracy protesters.” The US government, its allies, and a complicit Western press, willfully lied to the public, misrepresented its case to the United Nations and intervened in Libya on behalf of international terrorists, overthrowing a sovereign government, and granting an entire nation as a base of operations for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

A similar scenario is now playing out in Syria, where the West, despite acknowledging the existence of Al Qaeda in Benghazi, Libya, is using these militants, and the exact same networks used to send fighters to Iraq, to flood into and overrun Syria. This, after these very same Libyan militants were implicated in an attack that left a US ambassador dead on September 11, 2012.



edit on 29-8-2013 by curiouscanadian777 because: add comment



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I like this:


“So what, we’re about to become al-Qaeda’s air force now?” Kucinich sarcastically asked The Hill.


"Kucinich: Striking Syria Will Make U.S. Military ‘Al-Qaeda’s Air Force’ "

willyloman.wordpress.com...




top topics



 
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join