Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What is a Terrorist? What would get you locked up in a FEMA camp under NDAA?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 20, 2011, 5:01 p.m. EST by BlueRose (1437)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted as Terrorists"

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-undercover-investigators-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act/5440/

"On February 17, 2006, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the harm being done to the country’s security, not just by the enemy, but also by what he called “news informers” who needed to be combated in “a contest of wills.” In 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft announced his desire to see camps for U.S. citizens deemed to be “enemy combatants.”

A Defense Department document, entitled the “Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Supp.ort,” has set out a military strategy against terrorism that envisions an “active, layered defense” both inside and outside U.S. territory. In the document, the Pentagon pledges to “transform U.S. military forces to execute homeland defense missions in the . . . U.S. homeland.” The strategy calls for increased military reconnaissance and surveillance."

http://drstevebest.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/halliburton-confirms-us-concentration-camps-ready-to-detain-up-to-2-million-terrorists/

Please, help me understand what a "terrorist" is. Could this post be considered a form of terrorism?

42 Comments

42 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by bettyer (7) 2 years ago

You are a terrorist if you peacefully protest, or express an opinion different then what the governments wants you to believe. Or if you put something in print that questions the governments policy- we will lock your ass up, in a FEMA camp- without trial. and no one will be told where you are. You go to work, if the system says you can- then you pay your bills- anything else is terrorism.

[-] 3 points by Shule (2040) 2 years ago

In short time it will be fashionable to be on the NDAA terrorist list. So let us all keep on what we are doing.

I wonder what the NDAA will do when faced with 99% of the population being "terrorists".

[-] 3 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

the reason NDAA was adopted is because of OWS--certain "interests" realize their lives are in peril. Well fuck those interests, their lives are no more important than anyone here.

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

My, don't we have a high opinion of ourselves. This law (of which I disagree with) was not written with OWS in mind. This isn't something that can be drafted and passed in three months.

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

you're clueless. the act has been around for 50 years. suddenly, it's expanded radically, to permit permanent incarceration of suspicious people, without charges being brought, for indefinite periods of time... clearly this violates due process and is an abrogation of the 4th and 5th amendments (both of which contain elements of due process),,, but i doubt a detainee will ever be able to voice these conerns, because enemies of the state get military "justice" in a military court, where rules (as we've seen in pvt. bradley manning's case--he's been in solitary for 18 months). translate, they're scared as shit and expanded the act to assuage their fears. never before has such an extreme change been made in the act. they're thinking 5 steps ahead--and if this movement is comprised of too many like you, it will fail for sure--think 50 steps ahead, not 5--that's not enough.

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

I already stated that I disagree with the law. But it wasn't written with OWS in mind, it was written for actual terrorists. Now if the behaviors of some OWS'rs constitute terrorism, then I guess that would be an issue. Please don't fool yourself into thinking that the politicians are so scared of OWS protests that they are going to create concentration camps and incarcerate them without cause. This movement is a loooooooong way from having that degree of impact.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

That is something that can be slightly adjusted to take us into account.

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

Not one banker or "essential worker" will be sent to these concentration camps, only those who speak their minds about abuse. The camps will be instruments of terror, designed to silence the rest who might consider using free speech against the 1%.

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

couldn't agree more--the timing of this Act is not peculiar--it's a response to Arab Spring, wherein those in power see what happens when the populace finally gets tired of being bent over a barrel. Think Qadaffi enjoyed his final moments?

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

And of course, the workers outside will accept any and all abuse, for FEAR of going to a slave labor camp.

[-] 3 points by Idaltu (662) 2 years ago

It will be used to confine anyone who speaks up...thanks for bringing up the topic.....Anyone can be defined as a terrorist. There are no rules when it comes to NDAA.....

From : http://westgatehouse.com/art98.html

""[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."

(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])

Where they will get people like me: "ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;"...that could mean anything.

[-] 2 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

""ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;"

Yes that could mean raising your voice at a demonstration.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

raising your voice could be considered intimidation? of a group? the government is not that far gone yet/

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The law us vague for a reason.

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Inciting a mob to shut down a shipping port comes close to crossing the line.

[-] 2 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 2 years ago

Whereas designing a super-flu virus to remain 50% lethal while spreading easily from person to person through the air, in a facility that may not reliably contain it, in a program whose results are then kept secret, is, well... research. ( http://www.nature.com/news/fears-grow-over-lab-bred-flu-1.9692 )

[-] 2 points by Apparatchiki (4) 2 years ago

I define terrorism as any act which oppresses a certian race or people more than another ,I define terrorism as an act which forces people to commit crimes and turn to drugs.I define terrorism as injustice and inequality.I do not get paid to share this message its for free and that is what I hope for that men will stand for dignity for free .

I support Occupy Wall Street and Anonymous .I am happy to know that people are finally wanting more out of life .Like the right to have a job basic shelter .According to the U.N the support the Right To Housing and even jobs.

I say this with love please do not take no offense anyone because I plan to join the movement .I hear alot of people saying the whole wolrd is watching they are they are watching people get arrested and beaten and having their stuff taken away from them.

I wish to see this change .I wish to see the Revolution spread like wild fire when you look at all the great revolutions through out the world the formed in areas where the people are oppressed the most .

In order for their to be a real revolution thier needs to be communties set up .And more oppressed I feel the Occupy Wall Street Movement has alot more potential than what it is showing but it will take money and resources to reach the most oppressed in America.

I have spoken with people about the movement some feel it is just people that come from middle class familes I feel it primarily is .Those at the bottom the very botttom are all over America not in the millions but by the tens of millions reach them and you will have more support than what you asked for .

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

BUT remember, you just have to be a SUSPECTED terrorist. Would participating on this forum make me a SUSPECTED terrorist?

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

yes absolutely. would they use this law against you : most likely not. but for sure if there were a actual revolution going on they would use this on everyone in order to intimidate and coerce the civilian population.

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

And they don't have to actually jail people to silence people. They want to control by fear also. How many people will now be afraid to do investigative reporting, demonstrate against abuses? They win every time unless we consciously step up our activism.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i agree. people should never be afraid to speak against the state. they were already doing this back in '04 when people were arrested for wearing shirts against the war to a mall and a dj in colorado was fired for playing Dixie Chicks. it would be so easy for the populace to be silenced.

[-] 1 points by printer (5) 2 years ago

Read the top of this web page-see the word revolution . If you are on this forum, then you must be plotting against this government. and unless you browse the internet using secure untraceable software- they know where you live-- The purpose of the bill is to control the American people out of fear. If the American people can be make to be afraid enough, then they will conform to anything. http://simurl.com/mavtad

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

Basically, since the 1%'s racket is financial crimes and crimes against humanity, They won't be going to the concentration camps where torture and indefinite detention is legal. Those of us who speak out against injustice, or the debtors who are victims of this economy, will be the ones locked up, doing slave labor for the military industrial complex.

[-] 1 points by Catgod (1) from West New York, NJ 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Calm down.

I posted things like

as far back as 2007, and I haven't been arrested yet.

IF you start building pipe bombs and chit, well that may be a different story.

And the point at which your actions are interdicted - if at all - may all depend on how much utility may be derived from your behavior . . .

There is nothing more useful than a happy tool . . .

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

I appreciate your attempts to inject some rationality into the fray.

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

for all the good it does.

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

Mhmm. Never mind, it's all nothing. Go back to sleep people.

Don't let facts like debtor's imprisoned, prison slave labor, and dwindling war profits overseas keep you up at night....

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

That's not what I'm saying. I am offering proof that it isn't exactly what it appears to be.

Sure Rummy was a scumbag. Authoritarian, autocratic, and manipulative.

If and where private industry is benefiting from prison labor it needs to be highlighted and brought to an end.

In the march along the road to fascism nations use the legal system itself to justify their march - and significant steps along that path were taken under Bush - the NDAA does seem to further some of that progress.

the head of the FBI made it clear he is not in favor of the NDAA provisions that are so controversial.

It needs to be undone.

That does not mean I am going to engage in hysteria at this current time.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by snag (-1) 2 years ago

Direct 'quote' from the evil Jew Senator Carl Levin: "Anyone who objects to being a slave to the Jew NWO or sending their children to die for IsraHELL is a terrorist."

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

I would first suggest that you don't use quotes and links to well know conspiracy theorists if you really want to have a discussion about it.

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

By all means, provide your own links and info.......

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

It wasn't my post and link, it was yours. If you seriously want to have a serious conversation about it I would suggest you atleast provide a somewhat credible source. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that your just feeding off of the conspiracy food trough.

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

I don't have time to find the most sterile link specifically to your liking. Thanks for contributing NOTHING.

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

But you have time to find one of the most bias out there? How does that make any sense at all. So is it that you don't have time or you don't make time? Or is it just easier to pull one that most fits your ideology? If you had time to google search the subject to find that one did you pick it because it was the first one you came across so you just used it?

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

Find your own links.

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

With saying nothing you have said everything. In other words, you have shown your bias and now that you have been called out on it, you have no way to defend it. Good Job!!!

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

Another thick-headed troll. Your posts consistently show logic flaws, you MUST be a Republican.

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

And your inability to think for yourself and being forced to use what others have said because you can't think for yourself is sad. I simply pointed out that you posted something and that if you expect that anyone is going to take you seriously it should be a reliable source. That theory is only flawed by those who refuse to think one way and one way only. By the way, i'm a life long independant and think both parties are a crock of you know what.