A Detention Bill You Ought to Read More Carefully

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


I'm not Yankee Doodle do so bear with me.

Wasn't there a Law that prevented the US Military from being used
against it's own Civil Population?

If so, then wouldn't that Law contravien the previous one?

reply to post by purplemonkeydishwasher


Yes, no one is interested in that because as you are screaming that you are not a corporation they will be throwing you on a US corporate jet to some remote location for your corporate interrogation by corporate appointed interrogators.

Now, where in this WHOLE thing did you not see the removal of the miranda protection?

Great, more reactionary legislation designed not to safeguard freedoms, but to seriously harm them.

This bill should not pass.

It's time to write a few letters.

From
www.informationliberation.com...

Now that the Southern Poverty Law Center and the federal government, via the MIAC report and innumerable other leaked documents, now consider virtually anyone with a dissenting opinion against the state as “posing a threat,” millions of peaceful American citizens could be swept up by this frightening dragnet of tyranny.

However, according to the bill, an individual doesn’t even have to pose a threat to be snatched, detained and interrogated – they can merely be deemed to be of “potential intelligence value” or come under the vague and sweeping mandate of “such other matters as the President considers appropriate”.

This last designation hands Obama dictator powers to have any American citizen kidnapped, detained, and interrogated on a whim.

...“Torture, indefinite imprisonment, secret trials and limited staged hearings are the stuff of cheap dictatorships,” writes Ian McColgin. “They are the sort of idiocy we scorned in the Soviets, the Koreans and the Vietnamese. It is astonishing that we have senators and citizens even discussing this bill which is not a capitulation to terrorism – it's the triumph of terrorism.”

Homeland Security is already implementing technology to be enforced at “security events” which purportedly reads “malintent” on behalf of an individual who passes through a checkpoint.

I thought they already had all of these powers in place. They need more?!

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

 

I'm not Yankee Doodle do so bear with me.

Wasn't there a Law that prevented the US Military from being used
against it's own Civil Population?

If so, then wouldn't that Law contravien the previous one?

Your referring to the Posse Comitatus Act... yes that prevents the military from being used from in Law Enforcement operations against US citizens.
Nothing to stop the Feds from using LEO, or the alphabet agencies as an enforcement arm though.

However that point is really mute as this law would potentially violate habeas corpus, and pretty much spit in the face of the constitution

Which is supposed to be an even bigger deal in the US.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT October 6, 1917. This was passed during World War I. Woodrow Wilson submits to Congress and passes this Act. The purpose of this Act was to "define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes." With this Act Congress defined WHO the enemy was. It also gave the government total authority over the individuals defined as the "enemy". In the definition of enemy there was an exception in Section 2, Subdivision (c). It was: "other than citizens of the United States."
In Section 5(b) of this same Act it states:
"That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other that credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)."


EMERGENCY BANKING ACT March 9, 1933. President Roosevelt called for a special and extraordinary session of Congress in Proclamation 2038. At that session he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for relief in the existing national 'emergency' in banking and for other purposes.

In this Act of March 9, 1933, it states in Title 1 Section 1:
"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."

This says that any actions, orders or proclamations, made by the President hereafter taken, are hereby approved and confirmed. Congress just wrote a blank check to the President. ANYTHING he wants to do is approved, IN ADVANCE! Do you think we are living under a dictatorship! Is that how the President is acting today, as if everything he does is already approved? It seems so.

If you went to a law library today and looked up 12 USC (United States Code) Section 95(b), you will find this Act still on the books today!

But, if you will remember, the Act of 1917 applied to enemies "other than citizens of the United States." So in 1917 the war powers did not extend to citizens of the United States, and the government did not have authority over us and the Constitution was still valid and upheld. But Roosevelt made an amendment to the 1917 Act, in 1933. In Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 it states:

"Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended as follows;
During time of war or during any other time of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hording, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

By simply including in this amendment "any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof", citizens of the United States were now included in the definition of 'enemies of the United States'! As far as any commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, United States citizens were no longer any different from any other enemy of the United States.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by BrianInRI]

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by purplemonkeydishwasher

 

Yes, no one is interested in that because as you are screaming that you are not a corporation they will be throwing you on a US corporate jet to some remote location for your corporate interrogation by corporate appointed interrogators.

Now, where in this WHOLE thing did you not see the removal of the miranda protection?

Ahahha....so what will you do, exactly? Get a gun, and protect your sovereignty. You refuse to actually see what is going on, and how they are controlling you. Rather, you'd prefer to see these 'Acts' as LAWS and whine about how they are infringing on your freedom. BOGGLES MY FREAKIN' MIND, MAN! You'd rather sit around and discuss "OH THIS BILL SHALL NOT PASS" If you don't innerstand the rules, then you will stand under them. Do you understand?

Good luck with all that.



[edit on 9-3-2010 by purplemonkeydishwasher]

reply to post by purplemonkeydishwasher


What I was saying, if you think being a sovereign, is going to save you if they want to take you. You are wrong.

I am studying up to learn my common law now. I will be removing myself on APRIL 15th this year.

I am done with their system. It does not mean I may just up and disappear if they feel I am a threat to the system.

Do you not agree?

When 25% of Americans realise they sovereign, as the queen is, or any other 'ruler' they will rise up and snatch the diamond from the dragon's crown and humanity will prosper once again. Until then, bicker away over the puppets and manipulative words used by their priests (lawyers) and pay for their wars and sacrifice your blood sweat and tears for their enjoyment.

Kinda sad, really. The level of brainwashing you've been exposed to is mind boggling.

GOOD LUCK AMERICA.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by purplemonkeydishwasher

 

What I was saying, if you think being a sovereign, is going to save you if they want to take you. You are wrong.

I am studying up to learn my common law now. I will be removing myself on APRIL 15th this year.

I am done with their system. It does not mean I may just up and disappear if they feel I am a threat to the system.

Do you not agree?

It's a possibility.. sadly enough. Perhaps this is the reason why the idea of Common Law needs to be spread across the Continent. MORE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW!

No surprises here, this bill will be passed with very little resistance, who could resist it anyhow? They try to word these things in a manner which would sound "useful" if you were trying to "take down terrorists". In reality this bill just gives the government a loophole to detain and torture people for any purpose (usually not even involving terrorism I suspect). But of course if anyone asks, 'only terrorists here, sir'.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

 

Whenever McCain attaches his name to a bill, you can be SURE it will be an attack upon your freedom.

I followed Mr. McCain quite well during his Campaign, and did a lot of background research, and I will strongly disagree with you here.

Not just because the man was shot down over Vietnam, or a POW that was tortures, and didn't relay once piece of information into whereabouts of American bases on their soil, but because he IS a man of honour who loves his country.

Meh... What do I know? I'm just a Canadian.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by CanadianDream420]

Take it down a notch, eh?

I want to tell you a story of one of the best football players in history. He inspired hundreds if not thousands to carry the 'ol pigskin...that man of course, is Orenthal James Simpson. His friends call him OJ...teammates call him "The Juice"

In the big picture...what you've done is not near as important as what you do.

PEACE and Chicken Grease

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by endisnighe

 

If you want my boss is an attorney. I can have him take a look at it if you want and come back with his expert legal opinion. I'm sure he will be interested in this anyway.

I'll come back after he has time, which might be a couple days lol!

Let us know what a legal professional thinks of this horrible mess...

Ok, my boss reviewed the Bill (you're welcome btw as he does not have much time for anything extra) and this is what he thought;

After long reviewing this bill he came to the conclusion that this bill would only pertain to those who take direct action against the United States or its coalition partners. He also stated that there was nothing in the language that would pertain to a constitutionally protected citizen which includes right to protest or free speech (which also includes that which goes on here at ATS). It pertains only to those who take "hostilities" (or direct action of a physical nature) against the United States of America or are affiliated with an organization who takes direct physical action (ergo "Hostilities") against the US or its coalition partners (namely Al Qaeda which is directly mentioned). He actually specifically stated that political speech is extremely protected. (be it as he has experience in this field I personally believe him)

He has no reason to believe that this bill could be used to violate the civil rights of an American citizen (unless of course you take direct hostile action). However, he was extremely surprised at how short it was.

I know it's probably not the answer you wanted but its the one I got.

P.S. This is paraphrased btw and a much much shorter version. He sat me down for about 20 mins and explained it to me. I am convinced.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by DaMod]

reply to post by DaMod


Thanks DaMod.

I thought when I read through this again, it reminds me about the E.O. that allows the gov to assassinate Americans if they are enemy combatants.

I think this bill is in regards to that component. It is the congresses response or bill to further the explanation of the E.O. in question.

But like I said in this post-post by endisnighe

I worry more about the "potential intelligence value" component of the law. You could say if anyone has any knowledge, this could be used.

Thanks again for asking the Boss. We all know in these times, people like to keep their heads down, unless of course it is to shine.

reply to post by DaMod


Thank you for the response. The incredibly short length of the bill got my attention as well....very unusual for our beloved feds.

The only item that really worries me besides the obvious violation of habeas corpus, is item E on definitions of a "high value prisoner" the only that simply says any else the president deems appropriate or something to that effect.

You know its funny the last time the government tried to remove habeas corpus from mass amounts of US citizens was the civil war.

reply to post by endisnighe


Yeah I guess that is included in Affiliated with and an organization that would take direct "hostile" action against the US or its coalition partners.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by DaMod]

reply to post by DaMod


Makes me think of the The Patriot..."Let it be known if you harbor the enemy you will lose your home!" Colonel Tabington

Oddly synchronous times we live in .

I have an idea. Although I may not be able to do this right away are there any questions that pertain to this bill you have specifically that you would like him to answer?

[edit on 9-3-2010 by DaMod]

reply to post by DaMod


Oh, do not go there. I have thousands of questions.

Just one I am going over on another thread is the purpose of a jury.

Let us say a jury decides that a law is incorrect or not in accordance with the Constitution. Does a jury have the right to find the defendant not guilty by that assumption.

I have heard judges setting aside verdicts for both for and against a defendant on a jury decision.

I myself was on a jury that came to the decision of not guilty of a defendant. Now, I never brought up my position that there is nothing illegal with something where there is no victim. So I never brought it up in the jury room. The rest of the jury decided there was not enough proof of guilt so I kept my mouth shut on my position

If you wanted to just ask him his position on the right of jury nullification of laws, that the jury believes to be wrong. That is the only thing I can think of now.

I use to have a friend down in Ohio that was a FEO of a large company that was a lawyer/accountant. I use to pick his mind all the time on things like this.

No need to ask on my behalf. I think I might write up a list of things we can do to push our rights including jury nullification.

Here are a couple of things from the bill that stuck in my mind. The whole thing is repugnant to a free society.

(b) REASONABLE DELAY FOR INTELLIGENCE AC17
TIVITIES.—An individual who may be an unprivileged
enemy belligerent...

3 SEC. 3. INTERROGATION AND DETERMINATION OF STATUS
OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS)..The President is authorized to establish an interagency team for purposes as follows

B) To make under subsection (c)(1) a preliminary determination of the status of individuals described in section 2...

Each interagency team
under this subsection shall be composed of such personnel of the Executive Branch having expertise in matters relating to...law enforcement ...

All actions required regarding a high-value detainee under
this subsection shall, to the extent practicable, be completed not later than 48 hours after the detainee is placed in military custody...

An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent...may be detained without criminalcharges without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners

Scary! So Basically a everyone should take time to read the bill all the way through, print it out and read it with a pen in hand, Making notes of what you read, asking questions in the margins. So basically law enforcement can come and pick me up, and detain me for 48 hours. In this 48 hours the president must decide if I am an "enemy belligerent." So if they want they can start doing it KGB style. Imagine people just disappear, no reason at all. You never hear from them again.


[edit on 10-3-2010 by BeneathMartha]

[edit on 10-3-2010 by BeneathMartha]