Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 25 of 25
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: NDAA Bill is Pure Treason

  1. #21
    Kenny64 is offline Citizen
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Frederick, Md
    Posts
    608

    Default Re: NDAA Bill is Pure Treason

    On its way to the White HOuse.. passed the HOuse today.

    U.S. Congressman Justin Amash states in a letter to Congress:

    The Senate’s [bill] does not even distinguish between American citizens and non-citizens, or between persons caught domestically and abroad. The President’s power, in his discretion, to detain persons he determines have supported associated forces applies just as strongly to Americans seized on U.S. soil as it does to foreigners captured on a far away battlefield.
    Two retired 4-star generals (Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar) write in the New York Times:

    One provision [in the bill] would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.
    Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson - General Colin Powell's chief of staff - says that the bill is a big step towards tyranny at home. Congressman Ron Paul says that it will establish martial law in America.

    Indeed, Amash accuses lawmakers of attempting to intentionally mislead the American people by writing a bill which appears at first glance to exclude U.S. citizens, when it actually includes us:

    Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute.
    ***
    They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.

    "Don't Be Fooled": The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil | ZeroHedge

  2. #22
    JAyres is offline Citizen
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lewisville, TX (suburb of Dallas)
    Posts
    250

    Default Re: NDAA Bill is Pure Treason

    On the bright side, it'll create more shovel-ready jobs. He's going to need someone to build more prisons...

  3. #23
    Kenny64 is offline Citizen
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Frederick, Md
    Posts
    608

    Default Re: NDAA Bill is Pure Treason

    Quote Originally Posted by JAyres View Post
    On the bright side, it'll create more shovel-ready jobs. He's going to need someone to build more prisons...
    This is NOT funny. Sick sense of humor.

  4. #24
    Kenny64 is offline Citizen
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Frederick, Md
    Posts
    608

    Default Re: NDAA Bill is Pure Treason

    Bump again. PLEASE watch this and comment on your understand. ( We the people are in deep trouble)
    Kenny
    Obama Signs NDAA Martial Law

    Pursuant to Articles 1, 5, and 6 of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE U.S. CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COUNTER, IMPROPERLY AMEND, OR REPEAL THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!!! THEREFORE, SENATE BILL 1867 IS ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THERFORE, INEFFECTIVE!!! THIS IS BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA EXECUTED THE BILL!!! SOMEONE MUST CHALLENGE SENATE BILL 1867 AT THE UNITED SUPREME COURT FOR AN INJUNCTION WHILE A DECISION IS PENDING!!!
    SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
    5 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
    6 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU7
    THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
    8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author9
    ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
    10 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
    11 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
    12 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per13
    sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
    14 under the law of war.
    15 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
    16 this section is any person as follows:
    17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com18
    mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
    19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon20
    sible for those attacks.
    21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
    22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
    23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
    24 States or its coalition partners, including any person
    25 who has committed a belligerent act
    or
    has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
    3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition
    of a person under the law of war as described
    5 in subsection (a) may include the following:
    6 (1)[B] Detention under the law of war without
    7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
    8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
    10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis11
    sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
    12 84)).
    13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
    14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
    15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
    16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun17
    try, or any other foreign entity.
    18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in19
    tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
    20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
    21 Force.

    22 (e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
    23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
    24 regarding the application of the authority described in this
    25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals
    considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
    2 subsection (b)(2).

    3 SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
    4 (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12s1867pcs.pdf

  5. #25
    Kenny64 is offline Citizen
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Frederick, Md
    Posts
    608

    Default Re: NDAA Bill is Pure Treason

    Is The Passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (retroactive) To Detain Americans? : Indybay

    Is The Passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (retroactive) To Detain Americans?
    by Sue Riley
    Monday Dec 19th, 2011 7:52 AM
    The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler's (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler's laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But McCain's bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant or Belligerent.

    Why should anyone be surprised President Obama insisted on indefinite detentions of U.S. Citizens in The Defense Authorization Act. It was widely known that Obama gave a speech in May 2010 at a Security Conference that proposed, incarcerating anyone in indefinite detention without evidence of wrongdoing that government deemed a “combatant” or likely to engage or support a violent act in the future; including U.S. Citizens.

    Now that Obama has signed The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Obama like Hitler, will have the power to arrest members of Congress, drag U.S. Citizens off the street and from their homes to be imprisoned indefinitely based only on Government’s premise someone is a “Combatant” or Belligerent” having or likely to engage in or support a violent act in the future or do something that (might) threaten National Security.

    Now that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could millions of lawful U.S. activists be subject to indefinite military detention. When you examine Obama’s May 2010 speech, it appears Obama wanted (retroactive power) to incarcerate anyone that government alleged had (prior) committed or supported violent acts on the premise he or she is likely to engage in or support violent acts in the future: some U.S. activists may be vulnerable because no activist knows what other activists or groups they associated or networked did in the past or might do illegally in the future domestically or overseas. U.S. Government need (only allege) a person; group, organization or former inmate—has committed or might commit a violent act or threaten U.S. National Security to order Indefinite Detention of Americans in military custody with no evidence whatsoever.

    Historically when countries have passed police state laws like S.1847, many Citizens abstain from politically speaking out; visiting activists websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Government, i.e. cause someone to be investigated or detained in Military Custody. Are some writers dead-meat with Obama’s signing of S. 1867? It is foreseeable any “American” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners may under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 be deemed by U.S. authorities a “Combatant or Belligerent” or someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security. U.S. Government can too easily allege an author’s writings inspired Combatant(s) or Belligerent(s) in the past; could in the future or currently, to order an author’s indefinite military detention. It is problematic that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel that are interrogated, will be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Military Detention. Obama will have the power to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama will have the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence. What American will dare speak out against the U.S. government now that Obama had signed The Defense Authorization Act of 2012?

    Obama appears to be centralizing the power of federal Government, by getting legislation passed that U.S. government can potentially use to intimidate and threaten any individual or corporation. Hitler got passed similar laws shortly before the burning of the German Parliament building blamed on the communists: immediately after the fire, Hitler used his prior passed police-state laws to coerce corporations and influential Citizens to support passage of fascist legislation e.g., the (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS / DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE that suspended provisions of the German Constitution that protected Citizens’ freedoms and civil liberties. McCain’s (The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’ (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But McCain’s bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant or Belligerent. A U.S. Police State Government can use The Defense Authorization Act; and Patriot Act that includes more than 350 civil asset forfeiture laws to threaten or seize the assets of any corporation or individual; to strong-arm U.S. corporations, institutions and others to support government actions including passage of more Police State (Fascist) legislation that will intimidate, threaten and curtail the civil liberties of Americans.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •