DNC and Hillary Hacked AGAIN Just Days Ago - Wikileaks to Release

a reply to: Phage

Just wondering. Do you ever post a confirmation to any post?

You passion seems to be just pointing out what in your opinion is errors.

a reply to: Phage

If only we had a law where the contents of the bill has to match the title of the bill so we know what in the world the legislation is about... Its the same bill that now requires women to sign up for the draft. And what does that have to do with the budget?

Here, im gonna show you this new thing I found called www.google.com... to find information on how the NDAA was ammended to allow indefinite detention of citizens without a trial.

Just go to the URL www.google.com and search for the term you are seeking, like: national defense authorization act detention of citizens

national defense authorization act detention of citizens

( now I might be stepping over the line... )

a reply to: drewlander

Its the same bill that now requires women to sign up for the draft.

You said the President signed it. You're sure about that? You're sure it's a law?

What about that "majority of government behind bars?"

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: drewlander
And a budget bill puts the "majority of government behind bars", how?

I should have directly responded to this question. As cited in my post already, the langauge in part reads as follows:
"influences the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" or "intimidates or coerces a civilian population"

While there are many emails where this part of the law could be applied, I think it could also be interpreted to include how lobbyists coerce government officials to dictate policy as well.


In response to me being sure he signed it, YES. I am certain. He has a clear pattern historically of signing garbage on major holidays or during other major events to minimize exposure too. But lets not get into that debate tonight. I would never say the guy is stupid, but I dont think hes as transparent as he claims to be.

a reply to: drewlander
So, your answer is no. The bill does not put the "majority of government behind bars".

How about that women draft thing? Does it do that?

If the DNC has nothing to hide, they don't have anything to worry about.

Right? that what they tell us

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: drewlander
So, your answer is no. The bill does not put the "majority of government behind bars".

How about that women draft thing? Does it do that?

How can you say that? Because laws in general are open to interpretation and every case affects the interpretation of the law? That I can agree with, however the law is so loosely drafted it could absolutely put government officials in "indefinite detention".

a reply to: drewlander

Yeah, sure. Vague and all that.

How about that women draft thing? What's the actual law say?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: drewlander

Yeah, sure. Vague and all that.

How about that women draft thing? What's the actual law say?

I see where you are going with this and respectfully request that you consider being less elusive in response to minimize the number of replies it takes to decipher your response.

Its a technicality that the women draft thing is part of the next NDAA that hasnt been signed yet. I acknowledge that was a poor reference to use. While the aforementioned reference was just as example of how unrelated legislation gets bundled, the more important piece of this conversation is the "indefinite detention", which is definitely part of legislation signed by this president.

a reply to: drewlander

I see where you are going with this and respectfully request that you consider being less elusive in response to minimize the number of replies it takes to decipher your response.

I'm not going anywhere. I'm asking you to be more clear in your claims. I'm asking you to prove your point.
So far you have failed, quite miserably, to do so.

Sounds like the DNC outsourced their IT offshore

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: EchoesInTime

They don't only hack the Dems. It's just that the republicans don't have any recent dirt worth revealing. Apart from Donald's pussy grabbing of course...

Plus, hacking the DNC and Hillary's Campaign staff computers was easier because they use the 1995 version of Kaspersky security software.

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
I wonder why they only hack the Democrats. If it was Russia doing it why only pick on one side. Maybe all the hackers are Republicans. Hmmm

Or...maybe all the bad guys in government are Democrats? The obvious other option.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
May be time for those hackers to check out the media.

Since the MSM are all focusing on Trump and his [alleged] sexcapades, in the name of fairness Anonymous should hack the CNN websites and fill their pages with all this stuff about Clinton that isn't getting through to those not on Social Media sites or these hallowed pages.

Maybe if the general populace across the pond (from me, I mean) saw how bad both these candidates some kind of do-over could be arranged instead of going ahead with these two, I mean, come on America, you can do better...

originally posted by: Phage
I'm not going anywhere. I'm asking you to be more clear in your claims. I'm asking you to prove your point.
So far you have failed, quite miserably, to do so.

That's a very liberal use of comma's for someone so omnipotent.

Under Obama the law was expanded in 2012 to include Section 1021 (b) 2 under Subtitle D, allowing indefinite detention without any connection to prior acts of terrorism. At the very least, material evidence would be necessary to make that connection in the past. The only requirement of the section (b) 2 amendment added under Obama in 2012 is to "allege" (because no evidence is required to detain) that someone is tied to terrorism against the United States, and there is absolutely nothing exempting US Citizens, thereby violating the Bill of Rights 5th and 6th amendments. Two-hundred and forty years ago this country was founded by "enemy combatants" who wrote the bill of rights to protect the citizens from the government doing exactly this.


Subtitle D — Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL. — Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS. — A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(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.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR. — The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

18 U.S. Code § 2331
www.law.cornell.edu...

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear 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 mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

a reply to: drewlander

We can't forget the secret laws enacted that we are unaware of also

Obama Has Issued 19 Secret Directives
Very interesting how little the public actually knows about our own Government. They have their secret laws and orders that are even secret from the representatives of the public let alone the public. I had no idea the extent of this, clearly the Presidential powers are just too large and expanding! The public does not even have the right to know the policies put in place by their already secret Government! This has been ongoing for a long time but any change to type and function of the orders we can never know so they can freely do just about anything they want.

President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

By issuing his directives as "memoranda" rather than executive orders, Obama has downplayed the extent of his executive actions
Obama has issued executive orders to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified. He's used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control, immigration and labor regulations. Tuesday, he used a memorandum to declare Bristol Bay, Alaska, off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don't require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

Whatever they're called, Obama has been less prolific than his predecessors. George W. Bush issued 66 such orders, plus 25 more Homeland Security Presidential Directives. President Reagan issued at least 325.
Some, going back as far as the Lyndon Johnson administration, remain classified.

they must be published in the Federal Register to be effective —- PPDs are not," he said. "It is a kind of secret law. People have to obey it. But it's a directive that can allocate money, direct people or take a course of action."

The hostage policy was originally released Wednesday as a presidential policy directive numbered PPD-29. When the White House corrected that number to PPD-30, it meant Obama had issued a secret directive as PPD-29 sometime in the past 17 months.

Obama signed PPD-28, an order on electronic eavesdropping in the wake of revelations by Edward Snowden, in January 2014.

So what is PPD-29? No one's talking. A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment of the existence of classified PPDs

"The only reason we know about it is the sequential numbering of the directives, and realizing they skipped a few," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, which tracks the directives.

PPD-29 isn't the first to be tacitly acknowledged only by a missing number. Of the 30 PPDs issued by Obama, 19 have not been released. And for 11 of those, the White House has not disclosed even the subject of the order.

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don't require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

www.usatoday.com...
www.usatoday.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: xstealth

The DNS controls were turned over to the UN, therefore...

False.
Therefore the remainder of your post is irrelevant.

I actually work with DNS for a living.

I can guarantee I know more than you do about this topic. It is possible for them to shut down the internet or websites.

You saying "False." does not disprove me, if anything it makes you look incredibly arrogant and unknowledgeable.

originally posted by: Phage
I wish Al Gore had never invented the internet.

With John Lithgow as your Avatar, I just can't take you seriously. I read your words and I hear his voice saying them in my head. Your freaking me out man.

a reply to: drewlander

The only requirement of the section (b) 2 amendment added under Obama in 2012 is to "allege" (because no evidence is required to detain) that someone is tied to terrorism against the United States, and there is absolutely nothing exempting US Citizens, thereby violating the Bill of Rights 5th and 6th amendments.

False.

(b) COVERED PERSONS. — A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(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.

You left out this part:

(e) . . . Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear 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 mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United Stat

I think it's a bad law, but it does not imply that the President can jail anyone he wants to.

a reply to: xstealth

You saying "False." does not disprove me, if anything it makes you look incredibly arrogant and unknowledgeable.

It is false that control of anything was turned over to the UN.