Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Almost approved Law on arresting without trial

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 10, 2011, 2:45 p.m. EST by annemarie (17)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Sorry it's in spanish, I'll translate it as soon as I can, or post links in english.

"Un nuevo proyecto de ley presentado en el Senado de los EE.UU., (S.1867) La Ley de Autorización de Defensa Nacional, establece que el Presidente de los Estados Unidos, quienquiera que sea, puede detener por tiempo indefinido, encarcelar, torturar y asesinar a alguien si él o ella se considera un sospechoso de cualquier cosa que el gobierno de EE.UU. quiera decir. La detención, encarcelamiento, tortura y asesinato se produce sin que la persona haya sido acusada o llevada a juicio. Las personas podrán ser secuestradas en cualquier lugar dentro o fuera de los Estados Unidos."http://real-agenda.com/2011/11/30/senado-de-ee-uu-aprueba-ley-que-permite-secuestro-prision-tortura-y-asesinato-de-estadounidenses/

The reason I'm posting this news is that i've read it's not being talked about on USA main media. I consider that, although it's not explicit in the law who the target would be, it could be leaders of the movement. Why? because it doesn't say otherwise; it just says that the President can arrest ANYONE ON USA TERRITORY without trial. If you're doing things right, then they must be pretty concern about how it'll go on, wether it'll grow , etc. It is yet beeing studied.

Most important issues are: _It allows military forces to act in usa territory _It gives the President the right to arrest anyone without trial, reason, and for a non limited period of time. Justified on protecting usa people from terrorism, it actually allows the government to arrest ANYONE so: it is something you people over there, involved in this movement, should fight against. Leaders of the movement could, according to this law, be arrested under these new "rules" sooner or later. Wall Street, Government, Stablishment ...they're one and the same. You're all claiming meassures in the working class' best interests...so you're on opposite sides of the street (you vs. wall street & co.).

This is not an isolated issue: this law would actually make it legal to arrest leaders of this movement ..spreading fear and making it weaker. A bit of advise from someone living in a country that's seen a lot of this: FIGHT AGAINST SUPPRESING YOUR RIGHTS NOW. BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. YOU NEED YOUR RIGHTS TO GO ON WITH THE MOVEMENT. DON'T LET THEM MAKE THIS ILEGAL.

Sorry for my english. I guess the main idea is understood. Working class all over the world is with you, in spirit and in fighting similar situations in our countries.

CRISIS MUST BE PAYED BY THE ONES THAT CAUSED IT! NOT BY THE PEOPLE! Good Luck !

85 Comments

85 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

I was in Paraguay when the "Argentina bank collapse" happened, and the U.S. supposedly sent money, 'medical supplies', and other humanitarian aid...

However: People in the area who I talked to, who had personally unloaded the trucks, told me that they were full of used medical equipment, reams of medical records, and exposed X-ray slides (containing a toxic chemical which requires disposal), and that the money didn't go to help Argentina, but was a bribe to the president in order to cover up the illegal burial of the medical waste on indigenous people's land!!!!

Meanwhile, my friends and family in America were feeling all warm and fuzzy since the MSM told them "Oh look, the U.S. is helping those poor Argentinans".

At that moment I realized, first-hand (or second hand) that our perceptions in the U.S. are manipulated and suspect.

Since then, I carefully examine stories that the MSM puts out from the perspective of other countries, and I find that they somehow have more details and are more accurate, leading me to conclude there is a vast conspiracy to deceive the public through the media here.

Of course, I'm not the only person to conclude that, but my story is my own.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

People in the area who I talked to, who had personally unloaded the trucks, told me that they were full of used medical equipment, reams of medical records, and exposed X-ray slides (containing a toxic chemical which requires disposal), and that the money didn't go to help Argentina, but was a bribe to the president in order to cover up the illegal burial of the medical waste on indigenous people's land!!!!

That doesn't make a lot of sense. It sounds like you are saying we shipped medical waste from the U.S. to be disposed of in Argentina - I'm not sure that's what you are saying but that's what it sounds like.

Why would a hospital pay the shipping fee? It should be a lot cheaper to just deal with it through normal waste disposal -

Much more likely is the possibility of local hospitals creating a cover story for their own disposal methods, blaming everyone else including banks and the U.S.

the U.S. does have a dismal history with regard to Chile and our involvement there. I'm sure such rumors play easily under the circumstances.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Article 5 Convention NOW!

Thanks for the info. I've known that media spin is un acceptable for about 15 years, but this is a good specific account and it is completely credible about the disposal of waste at an intentional affront to Indigenous peoples. Corporate colonization tactic. The crime underworld deals with corporate society trash disposal traditionally, not exclusively tho.

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Some anonymous person posts a message about something they heard from someone in Paraguay and you say that it is "completely credible."

That's just funny.

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

Cast your aspersions on my character all you like, but it really happened to me exactly as I described.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I wasn't aspersing you ;) - You presented what happened - that is, someone in Paraguay told you about when they unloaded these trucks - and as a result, you are more careful about your acceptance of MSM stories. That's fine. I'm more intrigued by the responder above who took your story as credible, as fact. If you are more discerning about network news, I'm assuming that you also wouldn't accept an anonymous web forum message as fact either.

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

Would you believe something if the courts said it themselves?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/stand-up-and-exercise-your-rights-or-lose-them/

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I'm not sure what that has to do with my point about taking at face value something that is posted in an anonymous web forum.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Yep, I've seen those intentions before. You probably are not aware of how it works when its not blatent like the way the remaining Indigenous people are treated when civilization is not looking. I recognize a similar treatment of America in the BP gulf leak because it was controlled by GATT and everyone pretended it was not and that US courts had jurisdiction.

If that was the case the EPA would not have "asked" BP to not use core exit, they would have ordered them.

[-] 4 points by Restorefreedomtoall1776 (272) from Bayonne, NJ 2 years ago

The ghost of George Washington stands on the steps of the U.S. Capitol Building and raises his right arm, with sword in hand..........the sword held aloft when he won the Battle of Trenton during the hard winter of 1776. He says, "Will you step forward to save the Republic, won with the blood sweat and tears of brave men and women of the Revoutionary War? Or will you let it be taken from you by cowards and traitors who now inhabit these sacred halls?"

[-] 3 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

There are no leaders. That is the brilliance of what is taking place. The leaders are each and every member of the 99%.

What are they going to do? Create consecration camps for millions of OWS protestors worldwide?

Well yes. That does happen to be their plan.

Then after the 1% decimates this group they will target the Tea Partiers who are brandishing guns at their protests.

There is only one problem. Amerika already has more prisoners per capita than any other nation in the free world. Look at all of the funding problems they are having with funding.

Now double the prison population with the OWS members. What do you get? VICTORY!

There is no more money to pay for all of this imprisonment that the 1% and Tea Party has planned.

[-] 1 points by annemarie (17) 2 years ago

There are leaders. I do have trouble translating... maybe you're idea of leader is different from mine.. I think someone created this website and posts the main info and "convocatoria" - asking ppl to occupy. Somebody makes, and prints the flyers and banners...somebody speaks out loud so others follow....some will make politics besides playing music and useless b/shit like that... some might present lawyers and claim for you're rights in a "formal" "legal" way... (en el congreso o equivalente...)... those are the ones they look and listen to. Not ppl just hanging in the street playing music and complaining

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Double the prison population with OWS members? I thought you said the US has more prisoners per capita that any other nation. Arrest every Occupier in every state and you still are only in the thousands.

I also love how you say "Well yes. That does happen to be their plan" as if you were in the meeting when it was discussed.

You people crack me up sometimes. Can no one make their point without surrounding it with so much crap?

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Why Obama Will Not Veto NDAA Military Detention Of Americans: He Requested It.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Obama-Will-Not-Veto-ND-by-Ralph-Lopez-111210-198.html

[-] 2 points by grapes (3257) 2 years ago

Translation from Spanish courtesy of Google Translate: A new bill introduced in U.S. Senate (S.1867), The Law on National Defense Authorization provides that the President of the United States, whoever he is, can indefinitely detain, imprison, torture and kill someone if he or she is considered a suspect of anything that the U.S. government wants to say. The arrest, imprisonment, torture and murder occurs without the person having been charged or brought to trial. People may be kidnapped at any place within or outside of the United States.

http://real-agenda.com/2011/11/30/senado-de-ee-uu-aprueba-ley-que-permite-secuestro-prision-tortura-y-asesinato-de-estadounidenses/

If you use Google Chrome as the web browser, there is an option to translate the web page with a single right click and choosing the "Translate to English" item.

Senator Lindsey Graham said that the battlefield might soon include the United States so we all need to remember what Santa Claus is doing now: he is making a list and checking it twice, ... We need to be his elves. This bill, S.1867, may become the draft for domestic citizens to join the domestic battlefield. I play the most American game of baseball so I guess that I should collect the list of batting averages.

[-] 1 points by annemarie (17) 2 years ago

Thanks! And Agree on the Santa metaphore... here they're making lists and getting soldiers into the unions - sindicatos, gremios - to see who's who... it's quite naive thinking otherwise... they have no other aim but making profits out of your work and effort....one of the many reasons why usa is such a "great country" is they take money from health and education and use it it banks and business , and stuff that makes usa more "profitable" .. (so sorry on the spelling and vocabulary..economics in english is just out of my league) here education and health are FREE ...it's not a great country but we don't have to sell our house to get surgery..

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

So this allows military personnel to arrest law enforcement and judges as well under false pretenses?

[-] 1 points by annemarie (17) 2 years ago

I think so. I haven't found the full text of the bill....so i can't say much..but that's what it looks like...to me at least...

[-] 2 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 2 years ago

Oh fer the love o mike. REad the bill. Read the RE-draft of the bill, the second version that is the one up for vote. This tweeting and linking stuff that 'says what the bill says' doesn't say what the bill says. google S.1867 and read it. For yourself. what's that you say? You don't know how to read and think for yourself? Ok, I DARE you to go read the bill yourself. Does that help?

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

Quote:

including any person who has committed a belligerent act

Who decides what a "belligerent act" comprises of when there's no requirement to bring proof of guilt to an arrest and no public trial to which to present opposing evidence?

[-] 2 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 2 years ago

war isn't subject to the american criminal justice system...which deals with penal codes and the civil rights of American citizens. NON citizens, who war against the US (so far, outside the US) their rights are covered by Geneva convention. US citizen rights do not apply to people who are not US citizens. this isn't muddy when we are at war outside the US borders, the military detains and handles people our troops war with. if they come here, the bill just stipulates the military will handle them JUST like they do in war OUTSIDE the US. PLEASEEE read the bill. You have eyes, you can read. just read it. why would people NOT read it themselves? do not take my word for it either, read the bill!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112DPn2J3::

[-] 3 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

I have read the bill, and that's why I'm disturbed by that sentence. (Actually, there are several parts of the bill I'm disturbed by, but this is the most alarming of them.)

The problem, and it's been why people have cried foul for awhile now, is that a "War on Terrorism" is not a real war. You are fighting against people of varied citizenship, who live everywhere. Including right here on our own soil. This bill is giving them the right to treat ANYONE ANYWHERE to military detention if they commit a "belligerent act". That makes them a terrorist, and hence the enemy. That wording is too vague, and it's very vagueness makes it dangerous.

Define a belligerent act. In fact, screw belligerent, and make the word hostile - that at least would cut down on the possibility of abuse. Even then, I would want a definition included. What's hostile? Shooting up a building, setting a bomb - okay. Punching you? Not okay. If your life was never in danger, you shouldn't be able to lock someone away and throw away the key.

The truth is, not everybody who sets up a bomb and shoots a building are terrorists. Psychotic, maybe, but not terrorists. So, yes, they deserve a trial, and clearly they are going to be found guilty. Why does the military need to be involved with that?

[-] 0 points by grapes (3257) 2 years ago

Yes, war on terrorism is as fake as all the other wars that we have been and are still fighting for decades: war on poverty, war on cancer, the moral equivalent of war, war on drugs, war on crimes, and war on terror. None of them the U.S. has won and will be fighting virtually FOREVER. To assure our victory, I propose that the U.S. start using these PROPER ways to win these wars once and for all: to round up all of the poor, all of people who may develop cancer, all non-oil energy resources, all drugs, drug dealers, drug smugglers, and drug addicts, all criminals, proven or potential, and all terrorists, proven or suspected. Sieg Heil!

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

In other words, just kill everybody...oh, wait, aren't they already trying that?

...okay, okay - before anyone jumps on me - that was a joke. Get a sense of humor...

[-] 1 points by annemarie (17) 2 years ago

100% agree. I just shared this to remitir others to the bill itself. I wanted to post it but couldn't find it...here we have a different way of publishing and making laws...so it's the double work of getting to know how it's done there first..searching it then - i've learnt from this that "proyecto de ley" is called "bill" there! - I've been having final exams at the university and give priority to reading about my own country xD... but i think it's worth telling about the existence of this bill...it's others responsability to read the full text themselves

[-] 1 points by annemarie (17) 2 years ago

what does "S+number" stand for? is that like the number of the law? what's the "S" for??

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 2 years ago

the bill specifically says, quote: Does not apply to american citizens.

It allows the military to act in the US WHEN enemy combatants come to the US. like, if North Korea got a hair and decided to invade. really, you'd want the military to act wouldnt you? repeat...google the language of the bill and find the nice little words that say 'Does not apply to American Citizens.' think for yourself. stop regurgitating like parrots.

[-] 1 points by annemarie (17) 2 years ago

I'm gonna ask a VERY stupid question...but you reminded me of it with the "citizen" issue... what ID do you have there? Here we have an ID (DNI, Documento Nacional de Identidad)..it's like a little book plus a card with name, surname, date of birth, place of birth, parents name and signature, our finger print, photo and signature, an unic number that identify us , some pages for adress changes, some for military activity, some for certifying that we've voted (here we MUST vote...we can't chose) ... so..if i have to prove who i am, if the police arrests me, etc...i must show my DNI.... what do u use there? to proove that you're a citizen for example..

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You need to read the part which subjugates and nollies and voids, 'Does not apply to American Citizens.'

Do you think Harvard's Law Review, all of congress and other official DC statements, which contradict your assertion, are wrong?

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

We're at war against terrorists. In other words, they constitute an enemy army, in other words, anyone who is guilty of being a terrorist has committed an act of treason, therefore they have denounced their US Citizenship, therefore they are subject to the laws of non-citizen according to this act. The description of a terrorist in this bill remains

Any Person who has committed a belligerent act.

This law is exactly what they say it is. It allows the detention of anyone the government claims to be the enemy, without proof.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

No, the United States has not acted on a Constitutional Declaration of War in many years. The constant state of emergency and perpetual wars are only to maintain martial law indefinitely. No? Under what circumstances are executive orders lawful to sign and Constitutional?

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Could US Citizens get asylum somewhere?

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

If you are outside of the US, and can provide proof of persecution under international refugee law. If the bill suffers the abuse of use many fear it will, it's very plausible.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Yes, you must have the shiny beads of which I issue to those having earned immunity.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/s1867/

CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Aren't the Obama Administration and the heads of various intelligence agencies AGAINST this bill? Seems kind of odd, right?

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Yes, check the Whitehouse for the official response as to why he threatens to veto it. It's not why we'd all LOVE to believe it is. The reason is the way the bill is written, the military actions, even on our own soil, are subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention and therefore this means those detained cannot be tortured.............. or perhaps even be beheaded?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

I don't think I quite understand, maybe you could rephrase what you said? My apologies

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Well, how about just do a internet search of why Obama threatens to veto SB1867?

The beheaded quip is only a loose reference to an alarming number of guillotines known to exist on American soil.

[-] 1 points by Restorefreedomtoall1776 (272) from Bayonne, NJ 2 years ago

Thank you for your concern. Don't be afraid for us. Thomas Jefferson, our third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote the following words of wisdom: "The Tree of Liberty must be watered now and then with the blood of patriots". Be assured that we know what must be done.

[-] 1 points by Alexman8711 (23) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I actually made another post on this....and yet it didn't seem like people took it too seriously, granted I didn't explain it as well as you did (I just posted a link to an article). http://blog.nj.com/dr_aref_assaf/2011/12/a_national_defense_act_or_how_to_undermine_the_us_constitution.html

Honestly...I think it was already passed...it got a 93 to 7 vote in the senate...and you know the house voted for the bill.

http://revolutionradio.org/?p=23145

Yes under this law, anyone on US soil can be imprisoned for an indefinite amount of time for being suspected of terrorism, citizen or non citizen alike, with no court trial.

[-] 0 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 2 years ago

WRONG.. the bill specifically says it does NOT apply to US citizens. don't listen to radio blogs from sensationalists. You can read..so read the bill yourself. that's all....just read it for yourself. before posting.

Here it is http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112DPn2J3::

[-] 1 points by Alexman8711 (23) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

you mean this? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

I have read read it where talks about detainees...and that is what seems to say...but then it could have a catch that would allow citizens to detained...specifically I think that citizens that are not on US soil can suspected. I think that the reason that there's is an assumption that the law is threat to US citizens and residents is this speech by Sen. Lindsey Graham http://youtu.be/9ni-nPc6gT4?t=28s

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

The catch is very simple. Under this act, anyone who commits what they decide is a "belligerent act" is a terrorist. We have declared war on terrorists. Know one of the ways you can lose your citizenship even if it's "naturalized"? By serving on an enemy army or committing an act of treason. So if you've been declared a terrorist, you think they'll listen to your claim that as a citizen you are exempt?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/code-red-if-these-two-horrible-bills-pass-in-congr/

I have been posting about his bill and others that are a threat to our constitutional rights for that last week or so. Please see my update on this. There is a committee in the House that is resolving the differences of the Senate's bill S. 1867 to the Military budget bill they passed back in May. Then after this is done--it goes to the President. I hope and pray that President Obama vetos it, but I don't thing he will even though there was a previous indiction that he would.

Please call those on the House Committee and let them know what you think about this bill, also there are White House petitions asking President Obama to veto this bill (please check them out on the WhiteHouse website). Everyone should take action against this right now before it passed. Honestly we are heading towards Fascism if this awful bill passes. It will get scary.

[-] 0 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 2 years ago

did you even read it? like, the part that says its for enemies that come into the US and specifically does not apply to US citizens? I mean, if North Koreans took a little submarine and came to invade and bring war here, would you really NOT want the military to deal with them? read the bill, someone, before posting another stupid post without knowing what it says. You're only parroting what people are telling you like sheep, like well..parrots. READ for yourself. You have your own brain, use it.

[-] 3 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

I read it, so did constitutional judges who are sounding off the alarm about it. There is trick wording in it. Here are few questions I like to ask you: Are you trained to read contracts and such? Are you aware of trick wording in those two sections of the bill (section 1031-1032) This bill could be read one way superficially, but when it is taken apart and analyzed WORD BY WORD-- it really means something else. So please--don't be fooled. All it takes is one word and it can change everything. You need a trained eye to pick up the trick wording--the untrained eye will not get it.

Also, there were arrests under the Patriot Act which is like a precursor to this bill. Look up Jose Padilla and how he was arrested and now serving out a lengthy sentence in a military prison. So please don't tell me that this bill doesn't say that American citizens would be arrested by the military without charge or trial and held indefinitely. The Patriot Act opened the door to this. It is a complete violation of our fourth amendment rights. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_867851.html

The words "suspected terrorists" is used in the S.1867 bill. Do you know what DHS Homeland Security and the Missouri Militia Movement considers a suspected domestic terrorist. Here is a partial list of what they printed in 2009. Those who:

1) pay with cash 2) are missing a hand or fingers 3) have strange odors” 4) make “extreme religious statements” 5) have a radical theology” 6) purchases weatherproofed ammunition or match containers 7) purchases meals ready to eat 8) Has more than seven days worth of food in your home. 9) purchases night vision devices, night flashlights or gas masks 1) Those who are anti-abortion activists 2) Those that are against illegal immigration 3) Those that consider “the New World Order” to be a threat 4) Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

I don't have time to chat back and forth about this. So my question to you is DID YOU GET PAST READING SUPERFICIALLY SECTON 1031-1032 OF S.1867? Do you know about the Patriot Act and what it opened the door for? Did you read about the American citizens who were arrested under the Patriot Act and thrown into a military prison? Did you read the whole DHS 2009 Domestic Terrorist profile (also look at the Modern Militia Movement's full profile)? Do you know about the ugly history in this country--Japanese American internment during WWII and McCarthyism where innocent people were named Reds "Commies"?

After carefully going over the facts and doing research, I have come to the conclusion that S.1867's bill (Section 1031-1032) is a REAL THREAT to American Freedom. I used my brain and the facts are there for those who can get past superficially fluff. So this is where I stand.

[-] 1 points by annemarie (17) 2 years ago

Thanks for the references! I'll look them up and try to read them carefully...though my priority remains being my country ... but it's a conected world and we must remember things from the past - like the patriot act thing you bring up - and also take into account what happends outside...there's not a single country isolated.. ps. "vientos de cambio"...que buen nick!

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

Your welcome. We must stand our ground against this attack on our freedoms.

Power to the People!

Vientos de Cambio (Winds of Change)

[-] 2 points by annemarie (17) 2 years ago

north korea? submarines? wow.. did i travell back in time??? jajaja Look...with everything ur government is doing outside usa i'd say go korea! actually... what gives your country the right to make this bill being the BIGGEST TERRORISTS IN THE WORLD ,, US army is a terrorist army outside the us.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

You should read the bill; that's not at all what it says.

[-] 2 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

The bill says we can lock up anyone including american citizens who are susspected of being terroists

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

It applies only to those who are identified as al Qaeda and commit acts of violence; it specifically states that it does not apply to American citizens or lawful alien residents.

It also attempts to re-clarify the defense of military property; they can arrest you if you commit a felony on a military installation, or, outside the installation if there is intent to destroy military property.

Listen, if the shit hits the fan and you are declared by this government to be an enemy combatant your only safe refuge will be their detention. Because those who are engaged in combat, when confronted by someone they suspect intends harm, imminent or otherwise, has but two choices - disarm, arrest and indefinitely detain... or unload a clip on their ass. Which do you suspect the soldier would prefer?

I really can't recommend that you go militant on government, local or otherwise... because it's not just the cops and the military that are committed to their defense; it's the people themselves that are committed to their defense.

We're not playing these divisive 60s games any more - this country is going to move forward together.

[-] 1 points by annemarie (17) 2 years ago

how do you move all together with those who's interests are the exact opposite - antiteticos - to yours? are you planing to talk wall street people out of their ways and into yours?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Well one generation of retarts - 60s- is enough, don'tcha think?

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Some of us want our country to stand for something. Not be a nation so scared of it's own shadow than any act is acceptable so long as we're "safe".

[-] 1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

they can lock up american citizens forever with no trial. I dont care what u say. I know im right about that. I will not go to jail for life. I will use my m4 when they come to take me away. screw them they are shreding the constution.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Bud, listen... any judge, given the right circumstances, can lock up anyone, citizen or non-citizen, almost indefinitely without habeas review OR due process. I've seen it happen on at least two occasions. And the judge was right on both occasions.

But the Section you refer to - 1031 - is very specific to non-citizen al Qaeda. And anybody that suggests that it is not is out and out lying to you for the sake of inciting others against the standard, yearly, Defense Act of 2012 which, if anything, falls short with insufficient troop strengths in light of our need for employment.

[-] 1 points by annemarie (17) 2 years ago

look, unless al qaeda people wear a shirt that says they belong to it , they can chose who they think belongs to al qaeda... anyone suspected to be a terrorist means that.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

I have been telling them the same thing since they started posting this thread over two months ago. They have obviously not read it and have ne desire to. They will continue to try to use it to put there base in an uproar and ignore the facts.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Well, yea, because it's entitled the "Defense Authorization Bill."

Anything labeled "defense" is associated with the GOP. This is the Dem party speaking, as usual, through their ass.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

Here is the translation per Google translate:

A new bill introduced in U.S. Senate (S.1867) The Law on National Defense Authorization provides that the President of the United States, whoever he is, can indefinitely detain, imprison, torture and kill someone if he or she is considered a suspect of anything that the U.S. government want to say. The arrest, imprisonment, torture and murder occurs without the person has been charged or brought to trial. People may be kidnapped at any place within or outside of the United

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

This is a bunch of crap - READ THE BILL... It's available online for us to peruse through the Library of Congress.

[-] 3 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

Ive read the bill. it says u we can lock up anyone including americans who we susspect of being terroists forever. with no trial. thats what the bills says

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Haha... funny. Title X, Subtitle D: I've already read it. And you're what, Al Qaeda?

Allah blows...

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

Looks like you need to read the bill.

Quote: including any person who has committed a belligerent act

Tell me, who decides on what constitutes a belligerent act? The bottom line is - innocent until proven guilty. Everyone is entitled to a trial by jury. Y'know, that funny little thing we're supposed to have here called Justice?

[-] 1 points by grapes (3257) 2 years ago

NOT everyone is entitled to a trial by jury. We in the U.S. have been chipping away at our rather civilized and proud tradition inherited from the English. The English nobles at one time wrested that concession from their king. They could have chopped off his head but they did not because they could not come up with a replacement so they settled for "right to trial by jury" instead. "Rights" are an abstract concept but they are always implicitly and ultimately explicitly guaranteed by the threat of the usage of overwhelming physical force. That is why our Founding Fathers had very explicit statements about rights, lives, and the feeding of the Tree of Liberty. During wars, the "trial by jury" rights can be suspended through martial laws. Also members of the military forces and combatants, enemy or not, are not subject to the civilian "trial by jury", hence the usage of "court-martial" or expedient justice. The real problem is that the U.S. has declared virtually eternal perpetual wars (When will the U.S. win the war on terror? - probably NEVER unless we take out virtually all of the world's population but is that really desirable at all?) so the U.S. is basically "suspending" most of our civilized "rights" in preference for "safety". This is NO different than many countries overseas which had seen decades of martial laws and eventually some of the dictators had to be overthrown or shafted very bloodily. We may be joining these countries soon although the gory convulsions may not come for a while but sure as daylight follows night they will come. I believe that many foreigners actually see much clearer than our domestic citizens (who do not even seem to notice the downgrading of their citizenship from national citizen to domestic citizen) because they know tyranny all too well, are very allergic to that, and are probably alarmed (Talk to the Argentine mothers who had their children disappeared). We on the other hand are very complacent because we have been coddled and blessed for so long that we have forgotten how the blessings were secured.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

Maybe because our Founding Fathers figured their descendants wouldn't become so weak in the head as to not know the difference between an army invading their shores and the actions of small groups of malcontents.

While I agree our people are coddled from the harsh reality of war (Pretty much only our vets know what a true war looks like - to everyone else it's just something they see in Newsreels.) I hope you're wrong about where we're heading.

"Pledge allegiance to the flag, whatever flag they offer. Never hint at what you really feel. Teach the children quietly, for someday sons and daughters Will rise up and fight while we stand still..."

[-] 1 points by grapes (3257) 2 years ago

The Torch of Liberty shall be passed on to new generations and the flame shall burn eternal in the hearts of mortals yearning to breathe free, in immortality.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Section 1031, 'b'... Number '2':

"A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

Let me state this in plain English for you: "any person [non-citizen, 1031] who has committed a belligerent act... in aid of such enemy forces."

Who decides what constitutes belligerent? Under 1031 it's military justice because these are violent non-citizen Al Qaeda terrorists or combatants. It's very specific. You know, you have a laptop that grants you complete access; either a) you have not learned to utilize it, b) you are too lazy to read and totally reliant on the sound bytes of others, c): YOU are the "Talyban."

This idea that the radical fundamentalists that have been taking American lives since the 1970s are somehow "cool" people entitled to American civil liberties is sick and demented. Our friends and neighbors are dying here...

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

You can't "..." when there's an OR.

Including any person who has committed a belligerent act OR has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

BTW, we're at war against terrorists. In other words, they constitute an enemy army, in other words, anyone who is guilty of being a terrorist has committed an act of treason, is not a US Citizen, and is subject to the laws of non-citizen according to this act. The description in this act remains

Any Person who has committed a belligerent act.

Belligerent is not violent. You and I are being belligerent towards each other right now. We are not being violent. There's a difference. I know how to use my laptop. I also know how to use my brain and add 2 with 2.

This law is exactly what they say it is. It allows the detention of anyone the government claims to be the enemy, without proof.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

No, the problem here is that you need to expand your education of English grammar. But it doesn't matter because that's not the issue; it passed unamended. All of this "belligerence" is based on an article written by the ACLU which sought to remove wording in 1032, which clearly states that it does not apply to US citizens, and replace it with wording created by Homeland Security, or in other words created by Clinton, Leon Pannetta, and Eric Holder. It would not have benefited US citizens in any shape or form - that was NOT the intent of Udall's proposed amendment. These people are Anti-American Globalists working to the benefit of the world money mongers.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

The problem here is that you don't understand law, and I do. Never read any article by ACLU. I saw the bill mentioned on here, read it myself because I never base my opinions on others, but realized in this case they had every right to scream foul.

You obviously didn't read my explanation of why your citizenship is of no defense to you or anyone. When someone abuses it's wording (And even if it's not the current group, someone will eventually abuse it), you'll be among the people wondering how this could be happening. But, whatever, some people will only learn by cold, hard experience.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I did read it and I understand exactly what you are saying; that some will intentionally misconstrue the wording.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

Hell yeah Allah sucks there is no Allas. Im a God fearing red blooded American. And its wrong for the goverment to be able to lock up any american who is susspected of being something.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Geez... read the damn bill - it specifically says terrorists identified as al Qaeda. And we shouldn't be spending millions of dollars in NY protecting them with OUR civil rights. They are military combatants - not citizens - let the military deal with them.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

sir I have a problem when they can lock anyone up who they say is a terroist. and its not just al Qaeda. there are all sourts of defentions of terroists. prehaps if I dont like the goverment I am a terroists. so they can lock me up forever with no trial. thats a big problem

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Sir: I have a problem with people who make up malicious lies in an effort to incite others. The bill specifically stipulates violent "al Qaeda."

And you don't know anything about law enforcement: the judge is already possessed of the ability to detain you; he does not have to label you as a terrorist or even charge you with a crime - all it takes is suspicion with sufficient cause and he can hold you indefinitely with one little court order. In rare circumstances, it can and DOES happen.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

yeah so Im telling u now thats wrong. thats not what our founding fathers would want. im at war with the goverment. and ur an idiot if u think thats a good law. when they tell u to go to fema camps and turn in ur guns im sure u will.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I think it's a great law. In fact, I can take this to another level: Anything short of a stick of dynamite up their ass is too good for the Taliban; they're not entitled to detainment let alone habeas review.

[-] 3 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

ur missing the point. take al qudea outta ur mind for a second. I know that the goverment wants u to think everytime u walk outside a hijacked plane is gonna come crashing down on u, when in fact u have a better chance of being killed by bees than a terroist. or dying in a car crash. the states have killed way more people. our goverment is outta control and if u disagree with them and wanna stop them they call u a terroist and lock u up forever with no TRIAL. a great law? ur outta ur damn mind.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

There's no reason to take al Qaeda out of my mind because the bill specifically refers to al Qaeda and the Tally-ban. But, you're right, we're relatively safe here (or so we would like to believe).

I've served in the military; in my opinion offering them three hots and a cot in relatively comfortable conditions is far too good for them.

And I've also lived in Europe where it is far less secure. I was there for Haig's car bombing, the Berlin discotheque, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, Abu Nidal, Oktoberfest '80 (NeoNazis), the Beirut Marine Barracks in '83... the list from 1970 forward (remember the Munich 13?) is as long as this page will allow.

And there's no reason to allow the ACLU to extent rights to these animals in the name of the banker's "humanitarian" Globalism, but that's exactly what they are trying to do.

They're non-citizen combatants and terrorists... meaning they kill and maim women and children... dig one big-assed hole and toss 'em in. And allow the military to call it the "latrine."