It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 5:44 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 11:56 pm 
Offline
2012 Apologist
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:42 am
Posts: 13108
Location: LA LA Land
a weapon is a weapon. Thats all the constitution says.

Its what you do with your weapon is what counts.

_________________
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:08 am 
Offline
Superstar Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:48 pm
Posts: 1253
So to sum this all up, if your not a terrorist living in the USA then you have nothing to worry about.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:15 am 
Offline
Superstar Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 9:45 pm
Posts: 17344
Kinda like Germany a few decades back?........


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:18 am 
Offline
Superstar Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:53 pm
Posts: 2368
Location: behind the redwood curtain
Aqua Man wrote:
So to sum this all up, if your not a terrorist living in the USA then you have nothing to worry about.



Until you are designated one. :wink:

_________________
Robur et Decus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:34 am 
Offline
Superstar Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:48 pm
Posts: 1253
And this turns America into a battlefield how?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:38 am 
Offline
2012 Elder

Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:25 am
Posts: 9470
What makes it wrong is how it is being fuelled - this all stems from a false flag operation run specifically to allow this kind of change to the US. And the lack of education of the American people means even when the event that started it contravenes physics laws i.e. is IMPOSSIBLE as being presented to the people by the people making these new laws, most of the people sit nodding along as their freedoms are stripped away, piece by piece.

The programming is almost complete; now they must track down and get rid of those inconvenient types on whom the programming is weak so they will not disturb the dull-eyed acquiescence Of the People, By the People, For the Rich Bastards. :lol:

Does anyone REALLY think the US needed more power to go after their perceived enemies? Let's see, they murdered a US citizen rather than give him a trial, they invade other countries on trumped up lies, they cheerfully attack and kill religious communities within the US, they destabilise democratically-elected governments in other countries who will not cooperate with the Corporatisation of their nation's assets and resources and they fund terrorists with impunity.

So... you have to ask yourself... WHY do they need these bills? It is clearly NOT anything to do with other nations or terrorists overseas. Which leaves one of two possibilities as far as I can tell - they run the bills so they can piggy-back the ones they want on them e.g. the sanctions against Iran coming in with this one, or they are aimed squarely at the only people they don't really have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to controlling and suppressing them - the people of the US.

Happy to consider any other reasons you might think of...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:06 am 
Offline
Superstar Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:24 am
Posts: 1573
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
vision-master wrote:
Quote:
No law can be made to supersede or abolish a part of the constitution.


Link?

Quote:
"That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."


Ok, why can't I purchase a fully auto AK47 then?

Which reminds me, In Kali those semi-auto's come ONLY with 10 round mags, eh. (single feed) :lol:


So? Full auto is a waste of ammo anyway in most circumstances. One shot one kill.

_________________
"Do not follow where the path may lead.
Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:11 am 
Offline
Superstar Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:24 am
Posts: 1573
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
vision-master wrote:
XSlayerALE wrote:
what part of the US constitution allows you to have a fully automatic Russian made rifle with a 30 round magazine?

In Cali I can still have semi-auto AR-15. Thats still "arms" along with shotguns and hunting rifles.

...find your own link :P


wit a 10 round mag only. :mrgreen:


30 rd mags are easy to come by - have a few myself...

_________________
"Do not follow where the path may lead.
Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:21 am 
Offline
2012 Elder & Retired Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:26 pm
Posts: 11188
Location: Ontario, Canada
To the OP....who said we were all in the know?

Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.

"It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language," Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.

"It supports present law," Feinstein added.

If the amendment were to have passed it would have read:

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(5) Notwithstanding disposition under paragraph (2) or (3), further detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

_________________
Suz
What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:29 am 
Offline
Superstar Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:48 pm
Posts: 1253
Thankyou suz for your factual information. If you get called blind or naive for your logical reasoning you can just wave your ban wand and show a few pups whose Alpha dog. :p :p, lsom


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:35 am 
Offline
2012 Elder & Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:07 am
Posts: 3608
Quote:
further detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.



Therein lies the key to this whole thing. What would constitute the "end of hostilities"? By definition the war on terror is an infinite war with undefined combatants who could be anyone depending on the current definition of the day. In otherwords the USA is at war and will forever remain that way unless at some point an end to hostilities is declared.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:55 am 
Offline
Superstar Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:53 pm
Posts: 2368
Location: behind the redwood curtain
And thank you shokwav for your rational, and correct, interpretation. :)

_________________
Robur et Decus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:08 am 
Offline
2012 Elder

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:57 am
Posts: 1244
Location: Ohio
Quote:
quite true and while there are a lot of laws in the books that are patently unconstitutional, one that is allegedly as unconstitutional as this is not going to escape the legal eagles wanting to make a name for themselves in constitutional law.

Unconstitutional laws need to be challenged.


Unless it is ruled a matter of national security, Executive Authority/Directive/Powers, and etc, the bill's challenge is then negated and dismissed. Considering, the war on terror is under the basis of an undeclared war against essentially Ronin groups of in essence Non-governmental Organizations otherwise known as terrorists/freedom fighters respectively.
Considering, no declaration of war has been declared; wartime laws should not apply.

Quote:
if your not a terrorist living in the USA then you have nothing to worry about.


You should probably research into the Lexicon's assessment of potential terrorist activities, and the various terrorist classifications. Then, there's the issue of aid and comfort to take into consideration particularly without a declaration of war.

Quote:
Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/ ... 5C20111005
Quote:
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.


As far as I can gather Awlaki's crime was being very *verbally aggressively *and advocated violence against the US, this runs parallel to several groups who are in participation of the Occupy Wall Street, and Awlaki's US citizenship was withdrawn by the administration (The Obama Administration to be precise) and then liquidated/purged by the same administration/State. In essence, this sets the precedent in accordance to the Lexicon that OWS as a whole represents giving aid and comfort to suspected terrorists who are also participating in the movement, which amounts to not only crime prevention and prevention of terrorism but also guilty by association.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1
Quote:
After years of struggling with issues of who should investigate, detain and try suspected terrorists -- civilian authorities and courts or the military and its tribunal system


Suspected Terrorists and suspected terrorist activity, please refer to the Lexicon and No-Fly List. The No-fly List includes many US Citizens and/or legal residents under the basis on their behavior within the country according to the physical document under discussion.

Quote:
However, critics complained the deal was weighted toward the military because it required any suspected al Qaeda terrorists, even those captured inside the U.S., to be held potentially indefinitely by the military.


While I didn't see the designation of the homeland being incorporated into the battlefield in the physical document in summary reading... Then, there's the inside the US in reference to capture to consider.

Quote:
warned that Americans could possibly be detained indefinitely by the military.


I would have thought that this would raise some eyebrows.

Requoted without commentary:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1
Quote:
After years of struggling with issues of who should investigate, detain and try suspected terrorists -- civilian authorities and courts or the military and its tribunal system
(5)

Quote:
However, critics complained the deal was weighted toward the military because it required any suspected al Qaeda terrorists, even those captured inside the U.S., to be held potentially indefinitely by the military.
(6)

Quote:
That concerned the White House and many lawmakers who think the responsibility belongs, in part, to law enforcement agencies and the federal courts and warned that Americans could possibly be detained indefinitely by the military.
(6)

Quote:
Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.

"It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language," Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.

"It supports present law," Feinstein added.
(10-12 referenced by Suz).

Quote:
"You have people on the left who hate saying 'the war on terror,'" responded Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina. "They would never ever use the military and always insist the law enforcement be used because they don't buy into the idea that we're at war. They want to criminalize the war."


By past precedent, this should probably be analyzed as well.

Quote:
Therein lies the key to this whole thing. What would constitute the "end of hostilities"? By definition the war on terror is an infinite war with undefined combatants who could be anyone depending on the current definition of the day. In otherwords the USA is at war and will forever remain that way unless at some point an end to hostilities is declared.


Well said.

(Re-reading the post, I realized that I was less complete; than, I should have. * marks the edit).

_________________
Under construction http://theproblematicanalysis.webs.com/ "The Problematic"


Last edited by Johnnyclueless on Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:23 pm 
Offline
Superstar Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 9:45 pm
Posts: 17344
Quote:
"In the last ten years, something else has happened. We now see mass surveillance, where computer systems of an entire country are infected by surveillance programs, where the entire phone calls of a nation can be and are recorded by a company.

"Previously, we had all thought, why would the government be interested in me, my brother? My business is not interesting; I am not a criminal. Now these companies sell to state intelligence agencies the ability to spy on the entire population at once and keep that information permanently. In five or six years' time, if your brother or someone becomes of interest to that company or the government, they can go back in time and look to see what you said or what you emailed."



http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... explained/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.1867
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:19 pm 
Offline
2012 Elder & Retired Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:26 pm
Posts: 11188
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
further detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
I was under the impression that it was voted to agree to amend this part Shok..."Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country."

Quote:
Thankyou suz for your factual information. If you get called blind or naive for your logical reasoning you can just wave your ban wand and show a few pups whose Alpha dog. :p :p, lsom
Are you being facetious Alpha? Call me blind or naive if you like, i tend to be calm and cautious and I'm not motivated by fear. I also understand that this bill is also called the National Defense Authorization Act and it's how the congress funds the military and so it's a bill that must pass. No politician wants to be the one who voted to defund the military, especially if you are conservative. I also understand that if you don't support this bill you are called a terrorist sympathiser.
I also understand lawyers wrote this bill and they are always putting in loopholes and I don't think trading a small bit of your liberty is worth feeling safe. That said.....it's now up to everyone to write to your congress to show them how you feel so Obama can feel comfortable to veto it if it doesn't hold water because I have always believed you get the government you deserve.

McCain was pushing for this for years....can you imagine if he had been elected President instead of Obama? I'd be very careful who you vote for in this next election!!!!

_________________
Suz
What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered withphp BB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 php BB Group