As rights erode, is war coming to America?

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by Helious
As we have been slowly getting used to violations since the patriot act and witnessed the obvious violations of the 4th amendment by the TSA, "Safety Checks" or roadblocks if you wan't to be honest about it and now we are told there will be Constitution free zones which will affect more Americans that not, we are left to wonder how else they are starting to compile data, surveillance and intel that we are not aware of in direct violation of our freedoms.

The 4th amendment stops unreasonable searches and seizures. Reasonable searches are not violations of the 4th amendment.

"there will be Constitution free zones" wtf are you talking about?

the NDAA doesn't actually allow the indefinite detention of Americans, like CTs keep saying.

I really don't see how you can make the claim our rights are eroding.

Do you read the news? CONSTITUTION FREE ZONE

The NDAA does actually allow the indefinite detention of Americans. And yes, the POTUS can authorize you be killed with a drone if it is decided you are an eminent threat to the United States and are deemed to be "affiliated" with a "terrorist" group. Without due process of law. If you dispute this, show me why your right.

You really can't see how our rights are eroding? Well, thats too bad for you isn't it. Continue on!

Terrorism can easily fit under the definition of treason. The penalties for treason are to be defined by Congress. Congress has declared that a possible penalty for treason is death.

All of this is in the Constitution by the way.

reply to post by Hopechest

Terrorism can easily fit under the definition of treason. The penalties for treason are to be defined by Congress. Congress has declared that a possible penalty for treason is death. All of this is in the Constitution by the way.

You are correct in every way. With that said, it is not up to the executive branch of the government to deny an American citizen his due process of law should they be charged with treason. That citizen should be afforded his day in court and if found guilty, by all means, hang them high.

I just hope that when the dust settles, we can be rid of corporate rule. Maybe the new America can be one where the big businesses have zero control over the nation and are kept on a tight leash by the government while the small businesses are less regulated and allowed to thrive.

Originally posted by Anundeniabletruth
I just hope that when the dust settles, we can be rid of corporate rule. Maybe the new America can be one where the big businesses have zero control over the nation and are kept on a tight leash by the government while the small businesses are less regulated and allowed to thrive.

That would be an important first step. Lobbying is a huge contribution to the problems America has and should a "more perfect" union ever be formed, this would have to be addressed because this particular aspect of the United States is definitely not working for the people nor by the people. It is working to make politicians slaves of corporate agenda by trading their sole, political backing and legislation for campaign funding and perks.

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Terrorism can easily fit under the definition of treason. The penalties for treason are to be defined by Congress. Congress has declared that a possible penalty for treason is death. All of this is in the Constitution by the way.

You are correct in every way. With that said, it is not up to the executive branch of the government to deny an American citizen his due process of law should they be charged with treason. That citizen should be afforded his day in court and if found guilty, by all means, hang them high.

You are correct if said person will return to America to face his day in court. If not the preceding will happen without a defense and the decision will be based on known knowledge of the situation.

Granted, the government should at least have the curtesy to perform the mock trial but as in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki it was a foregone conclusion that he would not return to face charges of treason.

I would like to urge on an attempt a revolution of sorts, but I feel concerned about who it would be attempted by and how.
My concern is similiar to the person who said there'd be armed hoards in the streets looking for scapegoats?
I worry that the types of weapons technology that the US gov. has at it's disposal would make for an "invisible" opposition in many ways, and this would cause people acting rashly out of fury and fueled by the contagion of mob movement, to seek out "enemies" wherever they can find them and with whatever justifucation they can make up.
-Yes, even the guy down the street... and his wife..... and kids......

I almost wonder if this isn't EXACTLY what the leadership and power in America is hoping to provoke? I mean, the problems in the country are things like over-population in certain areas, poverty and lack of education, and mental illness. Those would be the ones involved in such meaningless bloody clashes first. A very effective culling.

I would hope that revolutionaries would take a modern approach to their attack, like we see in Anonymous or something? Hack their computers and take control of the drones, or screw up the use of chemical and biologcal weapons against the people... in short, use their BRAINS instead of their emotions!

Because there are some parts of the world that can still use the brute force of numbers to oppose their governing power, but I don't think the USA is one of them.

reply to post by Helious


My rights have not been infringed, I travel freely and do not give up my 4A as I travel in my vehicles and do not consent to my rights being infringed.
I speak freely about anything I want when I want, pretty much where I want, except on ATS but this is their chalkboard. So my 1A is intact
I keep and bear arms. Although there are some who would want to take them, that will not work. So my 2A is intact.
I can't think of my rights ever being infringed as I know right from wrong and I respect the rights of others.
I do hear alot of folks speaking of "civil war" though.
Well I read about it online yet all of these people who have "allegedly" been oppressed still have yet to revolt.
Sounds like someone is trying to herd the people into something stupid.
Alot of talk is all I see.

There will never be a civil war as long as we remain divided as a nation as a culture, as a people.

Our current government has divided us.

Entitlement vs non-entitlement
Rich vs poor
Fat vs thin
Smoker vs non-smoker
. . . ad nauseum

If we keep bickering amongst ourselves then we are playing into their hands and will never rise up in unity against an unfair and unjust government.

I don't think people really care about rights or freedoms anymore, they will happily trade that in for a comfortable life eating horse meat labelled as beef.

reply to post by Hopechest

You are correct if said person will return to America to face his day in court. If not the preceding will happen without a defense and the decision will be based on known knowledge of the situation. Granted, the government should at least have the curtesy to perform the mock trial but as in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki it was a foregone conclusion that he would not return to face charges of treason.

I agree that if a citizen should be over sees actively fighting a war against America, it may and probably will become necessary to eliminate that threat without having a traditional trial. That does not relieve the government of the obligation of filing charges and presenting the facts for review to the judicial system, upon review and absent the accused due to their foreign insurrection, let the judge decide the validity of the charges, that at least, is due process.

It was a foregone conclusion that Anwar al-Awlaki most likely would not return to the US to face trial but then again, why would he think he had too since NO charges were ever filed against him. NO evidence ever brought forth to say he had done anything wrong, NO facts or lists of grievances presented to any judge or any officer of the court. The president simply issued a kill order, on his own, without legal standing to do so in direct violation of the Constitution.

That is what dictators do, not American presidents. Now, here is the thing, me personally, I think Anwar had it coming and I shed no tears for him but it's not my Job to judge nor execute and it's not Obamas either.

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by olaru12

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by Helious

 

A revolution/civil war needs leaders. Who has the guts to step up and say "Follow Me"

ATS keyboard warriors?..............

No, a revolution doesn't need a leader to start, only to finish. They would emerge, make no mistake.

Then it wouldn't be a cluster **** destined to be an armed mob looking for scapegoats, easily taken care of by tptb.

I guess that is the difference in thinking between people who see things clearly and people that take these conversations as some sort of joke.

What it would be to begin with is isolated pockets of resistance to federal law and the enforcement of such, as momentum grew, it would become community wide, then county wide, law enforcement would begin to take sides as their personal families and friends became involved. State leaders would be then forced to choose allegiance and little by little the "movement" would gain legitimacy.

As military personnel both active and reserved were called in there would be those on both sides of the fence and people would defect, not all but some. Veterans would start to actively organize and communicate and structure would most likely start to take shape. Borders would start to be outlined and many people would be killed. As the fog of war spread, the likely scenario of foreign intervention on behalf of the current US government would almost be inevitable and once we had foreign boots on the ground, it is reasonable to assume that we would see even more defection of US troops coming over to the peoples defense.

Yes, it would be a cluster but it is just as likely to be dis jointed and chaotic for the government as it would the people and in any scenario the loss of life and atrocity would be more than unbearable.

edit on 16-2-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)

Yes, but its called breaking the eggs for the omlette. It would have to be done.

reply to post by jcarpenter


Excuse me but you had a presidential/senate/congress election last year. Your country voted for these "tyrants". They are your democratically elected leaders.

I take it you are anti-democratic then.

I suggest you start your own political party and put down clearly what you stand for. Or perhaps with the gun lobby start some terrorist group.

I do sympathise with your views, that your presidential election was like some weird kind of game/personality show but you have to get off your arses and do something about it and change the system. (preferably peacefully)

Anyone who thinks our rights have eroded has no idea about American History. More people have more rights that are protected now then at any other time in out history. I know people just want to bitch about things but, for the love of god pick up a damn book and do a little reading before parroting whatever talking head is making a living at fear mongering.

Originally posted by MrSpad
Anyone who thinks our rights have eroded has no idea about American History. More people have more rights that are protected now then at any other time in out history. I know people just want to bitch about things but, for the love of god pick up a damn book and do a little reading before parroting whatever talking head is making a living at fear mongering.

Please point me to a source that shows we have more rights being protected now than at any other time in history so that I can be sure that's true and not just you parroting a talking head.

Please point me too a book so I may do a little reading that back up any claim you make. Please look up the definition of fear mongering and after doing so, realize there isn't any in this thread.

I hope so...the first to go will be all the anti-gun liberals since they won't be armed. I can't wait to hear their screams...

The revolution would never form with a centralized movement. It would begin with different groups being driven to action through anger of something the administration did. For example, if the child income tax write off ended and the huge tax returns received by the poor stopped or the hud housing project to be ended these factors would stir the lower middle class and the poor to action.

An action such as the trey von martin shooting is manipulated the way attempted by the MSM triggers unrest and riots (much like the San Francisco riots occured.)

Another entirely different action that may trigger a movement is if guns were permanently banned after mass shootings drove congress to feel there was no other possible venue to stem the violence.

Poor responses to natural disasters.

devaluation of american currency causing unobtainable food prices and fuel.


These serve as examples only and are not concrete there are other actions combinations that can occur that drives popular unrest.

When popular unrest occurs the angry people begin to search for a platform such as the occupy wall street movement. The unrest then unite behind a series of demands often in no way related to the initial problems.

The civil war could begin tomorrow or in ten years its a snapping point that will occur and an avalanche of unrest will ensue.