Congratulations, you have won a free ticket to Gitmo

Thank you for posting on this forum. Your IP address has been recorded, your actual location is just a matter of forcefully(legal now) obtaining your IP address from your ISP. The laws as you know them have changed. You are now an enemy of the state because of your opinion of 911. All previous privacy laws have been circumvented in this time of terror. There is no need to panic, please remain calm and wait for your local NWO operative to contact you.


If the coin drops tomorrow will you be ready?
Who do you trust? You guys realise digital records are very easy to search/change/delete and stuff?

WHOOHOO I WON!!!!

Sure, why not, I'll run with this idea.

Domestic electronic eavesdropping, and bias are not major offenses to land one in Gitmo. Opinion is just that, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt still has to be presented.

Say for example, a transcript of ones conversation with known terror suspects and or group members. Or even back channel financing, would require evidence, not just a Agents gut feeling or dislike of some one.
Especially if that some one is American.

We still have a right to express, within the freedom of speach and assembly.

The gov still needs to handle the real threats, not just people with contradicting views. Until those people become "actual" threats, they are more than likely just on a watch list.

And what becomes of the watchlist when Pooh meets Fan? How do we know our "files" don't have "Potential dissident/insurgent, 1693 peices of evidence indexed from (insert agency here) computers." Gulp. Ask IBM how WW2 lined their pockets.......

Hey everyone! I have proof of ...BOOM. Like I just invented a car that runs on snot.

Good post, and not one of those boring old ATS is co-intelpro (or whatever they call it)...

See at the moment everything is cool and you can have your opinion without getting into trouble, but what if?

What if you have spent years running around the internet slagging off at the government, saying how much you hate them, seeing thru all their little schemes while the rest of the Sheep go along with it...

Then all of a sudden things change, policy changes and the "Sheppard" decides that he cannot put up with these little trouble makers anymore, decides that it is time to cull the flock...

Maybe he is just sitting back waiting for the data to accumulate and bang he will access via many, many avenues - ISP? Nah who needs that when you have Microsoft letting NSA insert code in windows. He can know everything you have typed on your computer, he will know who you are and

He will get you in the end

Now of course this is not good "business" for ATS and other sites like it. So you are going to see all the "good ole boys" come out of the woodwork and hijack this thread...

And finally, NO I do not think the CIA has anything to do with ATS or any of the other Conspiracy sites... Why? They already have what they need from Microsoft.

So now my little smurfs enjoy your "opinion" and "free speech" while it lasts, even though as you should know by now, it never achieves anything...

HA!

Oh and if you are just small fry I don't think you would have to worry much - but I wouldn't like to have the "conspiracy master" award. I am sure they will be first to the chopping block!

Actually thinking about it some more, they probably don't care anyway unless you really start agitating the masses...

Anyone who relies on watchlists, surveilance and tyranny is the one who brings the destruction of peace and harmony and liberty, introducing paranoia, accusation, guilt and fear to sell a security system and policy to a power hungry group of liars. Screw em.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Opinion is just that, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt still has to be presented.

Dude, did you just wake up from a coma?

No offense, but who do you think will be asking for this proof? A judge? In a trial??

The spooks can grab anyone off the street, label them a terrorist or enemy combatant and throw them in Gitmo or any number of secret prisons until they're so old they forget their own name. Not only can you be held indefinitely without charge, any of your family or friends that open their mouths about your arrest will end up joining you. If you don't believe me, read the Patriot Act.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Domestic electronic eavesdropping, and bias are not major offenses to land one in Gitmo. Opinion is just that, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt still has to be presented.

With all due respect, you might want to consider the following sources that would render the "idea" of landing one's self in Gitmo for next to nothing, a very real possibility.
H.R. 1268, H.R. 3162, H.R. 3930, H.R. 5122

All right guys, just to simplify it a little more, for clarities sake. Some one, would have to be an al-Qaeda (a.k.a. al-Qaida, al-Qa'ida - The Base) sympathizer or anti US fifth columnist to even gain the susposed "NWO operative" or bad gov guys attention.

Most of those government employees are family people, with spouses, kids, neighborhood friends and all that jazz. Do you honestly, think they are just going to up and detain or "vanish" their inlaws or bowling league companions because, they have a personal grudge?

That would be a waste of time, resources and once reviewed by internal investigations, put their career on the line. No one wants to risk their j o b.

For the record, I have read the "Home Rules" before. It's not the average Joe Shmoe they are after, but the "sympathizer" and "Fifth Column" types they are on the look out for.

Point being, why would they just grab ANY ONE off the street?
It is not a very logical or sound, way of conducting counter terrorism.

Can any of you show me where in the HRs it says/authorises, any thing about the gov being able to "grab anyone off the street"?
As in the actual quoted text, not just a section number.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Can any of you show me where in the HRs it says/authorises, any thing about the gov being able to "grab anyone off the street"?
As in the actual quoted text, not just a section number.

- H.R. 1268 - Real ID Act

Official Purpose

* Sec. 201 #3) - "The term official purpose includes but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine."


Authority

* Sec. 205.(a) - "Participation of Secretary of Transportation and States- All authority to issue regulations, set standards, and issue grants under this title shall be carried out by the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the States."


Minimum Document Requirements and Issuance Standards for Federal Recognition

* Sec. 202 (b)(9) - "A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements."
source

Here's the "show me your papers" law. You'd better be able to prove who you are or you won't be able to prove yourself as an American citizen. Not opinion... just law.

- H.R. 3162 - USA Patriot Act

Title VIII

* Sec. 802 (a)(5)

1. Involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
2. appear to be intended--
1. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
2. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
3. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
3. occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
source

Speaking your mind (exercising your 1st Amendment right) could label you as a domestic terrorist. Let's not forget about these.

- H.R. 3930 - Military Commissions Act 06

‘‘§ 948a. Definitions
‘‘In this chapter:
‘‘(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful
enemy combatant’ means—
‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who
has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its co-belligerents who is
not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who
is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);
or
‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant
by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent
tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense.
‘‘(B) CO-BELLIGERENT.—In this paragraph, the term ‘cobelligerent’,
with respect to the United States, means any State
or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United
States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against
a common enemy.
‘‘(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘lawful enemy
combatant’ means a person who is—
‘‘(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party
engaged in hostilities against the United States;
‘‘(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized
resistance movement belonging to a State party
engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible
command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at
a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the
law of war; or
‘‘(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes
allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities,
but not recognized by the United States.
source

If you stand up for your rights, you could be labeled as a domestic terrorist under the USA Patriot Act... along with the MCA, that could very easily turn into an unlawful enemy combatant. Then what?

- H.R. 5122 - John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(a) USE OF THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 333 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
‘‘§ 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and
Federal law
‘‘(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.—
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the
National Guard in Federal service, to—
‘‘(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United
States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or
other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or
incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the
United States, the President determines that—
source

Basically, rolling out the proverbial red carpet for the President to declare Martial Law.

For the bills that I cited, the authority is laid in the hands of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the President him/herself. I whole heartedly believe that the track record for the actions of these people speak loudly for themselves. They've already shown that they will do as they wish, especially with the comments of President Bush like these. Any dissent towards the Government... any at all... could very easily entice some higher ups to invoke one of the above mentioned laws against you.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Point being, why would they just grab ANY ONE off the street?
It is not a very logical or sound, way of conducting counter terrorism.

Can any of you show me where in the HRs it says/authorises, any thing about the gov being able to "grab anyone off the street"?
As in the actual quoted text, not just a section number.

Advisor, you are correct in that the spirit of the law is aimed at people who are obvious terrorist threats, but there is no provision to prevent abuse and we have already seen the FBI admit that there have been many cases of patriot act abuse. If you'll remember, just a few months ago congress disclosed that the FBI had been gathering info on citizens without justifiable cause. They said they were "sorry" and wouldn't do it again..

I will try to find the actual text, but as it is written it is a "catch-all" law that allows them to decide what constitutes a terrorist. You can be disappeared and right now there are human rights groups looking for 39 people that they suspect have been detained in secret. The terrorist watch list has grown exponentially and some reports are that over a half million people are on the government's "no-fly list". We know that the terrorist mastermind Cat Stevens is on that list, I believe Ted Kennedy was also placed on the list. The point should be taken that "troublemaker" = "terrorist" and this law is wide open for abuse.

Infoholic

Good job, well done. You live up to your screen name, to say the least.


By the way, if you are interested of course. Feel free to U2U me about becoming a Scholar of the Research Forum. If you have the time that is, I have a feeling you might just fit in well with a couple of the projects.

OMG I finally got back to my post!. I have been trying to post a reply now for about 5 weeks, each time "the connection has timed out". (I am in Australia right now). Kudos to the replies, my question is answered.

Its a bit like being a communist in the 50s, annoy your neighbours in some way and you would never be seen again. My father use to go to a lefty bookshop in sydney australia in the 70s. ASIO(oz cia) rented the shop across the road blacked out the windows and took pictures and surveiled everyone that set foot in that bookshop. This was 30 odd years ago in australia. What do you reckon the 21st century version of these tactics are????


For anyone that believes the war on terror isnt as cut and dry as news corp likes you to think, who is the real enemy of the state?


*disclaimer for ASIO/CIA(same orgs arnt ya?)*

I love yous all, wa'ha allah

well the government made a list of dissidents to be round up in the late 60's and 70's and now in the information age they can do a better job thanks to everyone's intrest in ATS and everything being saved on file of what was said as well as views.



[edit on 7-7-2007 by cpdaman]

I'm sure I'm on such a list right now just for posting here. I believe the premise of the original post to be plausible. I want my government to know my opinion. I want them to know that I am unhappy with their job performance, I want them to know I am aware of the authoritarian laws they are creating, and I want more people to do the same and let their government know what they think. Writing our senators worked recently with the shamnesty bill. It didn't work with my 2 senators, but it renewed some hope that the people can still exercise control over their government.

When people fear the government you have authoritarianism. When the government fears the people you have liberty. I think Ron Paul said that, unsure.

[edit on 7/10/07 by Kelldor]