Dissenters To Be Detained As "Enemy Belligerents"?

reply to post by IntastellaBurst


They have had that power for a long time now. There is nothing new here. If you are deemed a threat to National Security, you can be detained forever if they wish right now.

This is a political ploy.

I suppose I could be way off base here, but I'm thinking it has something to do with (A) How to detain people "lawfully" during martial law. And (B) Let's say Johnny from down the street is talking about robbing a senator's, or congressman's home while said individual is at work, or claiming to be working as a public servant. Some OS believer tattles on him, and there ya' go, Johnny only lives in our memories...

It is in my opinion that this law should require these public servants to undo the damage they have done thus far to our constitution. Beginning with the trial of G.W. Bush and cohorts.

Me? I've got bigger fish to fry...
I don't like the way Israel is behaving, I think I'm going to have to spank her for acting like a spoiled little princess. Seen the news articles lately???

Peace, my brothers and sisters.

A law can never supersede the Constitution. Just remember that. No matter what law is passed it cannot supersede the Constitution. And so far they haven't altered the Constitution. I just hope our military and law enforcement officer maintain there oaths.

Not sure if this applies here, but it seem's to be connected in some area's, not the same subject, but a tie in perhap's...




www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


i dont think it matters that both sides of the dictatorship want to push it through.
of course they would both want it through they work for the same people and its ridiculous to assume that this article isnt true simply because the only 2 parties that you hear about are trying to get it into legislation

joe lieberman isnt a democrat he went independant when the dems wouldnt support him for conneticut senator! what a schmuck lol!

[edit on 9-3-2010 by The Benevolent Adversary]

reply to post by yeahright


Thanks for that.
That makes more sense.

This is taking Nixon's enemy list a big step forward.

"welcome to the camp......ain't gonna take it anymore"- Who

meet the new boss, worse than the old boss

I've started a similar thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There was a news/media interview in which 911 truthers were mentioned specifically concernign possibly detentions without charge, indefinitely. In addition the incident of the lockdown of the pentagon by the gunman, J. Patrick Bendel was brought up to illustrate how this could be used. In fact most likely WOULD have been set up, to win support to pass this bill.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by IntastellaBurst

 

They have had that power for a long time now. There is nothing new here. If you are deemed a threat to National Security, you can be detained forever if they wish right now.

This is a political ploy.

yep, and you would/will be a political detainee, which happens mostly in communist and other dictatorships...

well, well... if this will not be an eyeopener for us citizens, than you can kiss your a** goodbye

Orwell is probably turning in his grave

this also is a very hard proof that your beloved corrupted government is very, very scared of what is happening and that they are desperate that the truth do not come out...

well this really doesn't suprise me lol...

Here's some of the posts I've posted that all tell you that this is next!...

Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power

Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists

Under plan, intelligence agencies would be consulted before reading of rights

On an interesting note, the court ruled in favor of the above 'law'... objectively, there's really only one way all this legislation is going...

Lindsey Graham: White House mulling indefinite detention

Can anyone here remember an ACT that was originally shot down under the Bush Administration known as the Domestic Enhancement Security Act?

Why am I not suprised...

I think that I'm going to increase my membership dues to gold with the ACLU next period!



[edit on 10-3-2010 by DarkspARCS]

reply to post by ExPostFacto


While your statement is true ExPost, the application and adherence to your statement by our government officials is lacking. They hold the stance that the Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper and not the law of the land.

They have shown that they will invoke the Constitution only when it benefits themselves. They pick and choose and get away with it because the People for the most part have not paid attention to Washington since the 1900s or so.

My concerns with this draft bill is how quietly will they introduce it? Will ANY of the MSMs be strong enough to question it? How will it be spun?

With the recent news that 'Jihad Jane' or whatever they call that lady being arrested I suspect we will see this bill rushed through committee and up for a vote before Easter....Just remember, you heard it here!

Security is derived from Freedom, not the other way around. Hopefully more and more people realize that axiom before they realize that they live in a legal dictatorship.

Originally posted by yeahright
Might check the actual bill for clarification.

Absolutely, read it.. hitler would love this unapologetic fascism... ANYONE the govt calls a name "shall not" be advised of, or enjoy any rights...

The party leader oligarch puppet "shall" make the final determination. Zeig heil mein fuhrer mccain!.. this pusillanimous corpse just lined his depends with every protection against govt abuse the founding fathers gave us before unleashing a putrid blast of grandpas nachos inspired liquid swamp-ass.

This is no different than innocent people being punished by the king and his minions... Read the whole thing and notice how DC mafia politicians and fed elite totally control the final determination whether or not the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent..

Wow its actually in writing mccain wants our enjoyment of rights moved from the constitution, to a small handful of the elite. I have a new level of mini vomit in my mouth disgust for this ridiculous disgraceful mummy.

(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN STATEMENT 6 AND RIGHTS.—A individual who is suspected of being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall not, during interrogation under this subsection, be provided the statement required by Miranda v. Arizona 10 (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) or otherwise be informed of any rights that the individual may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda v. Arizona. 14

Originally posted by Snarf
why do people star & flag before they read what the hell they're flagging?
Why read teh headline and immeidately agree or disagree?

THIS ISN'T DENYING IGNORANCE

it is SUPPORTING it, whole heartedly

FROM THE BILL:

(8) PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘‘privileged belligerent’’ means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

ARTICLE FOUR OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (cut off, there is a lot more to read)

source for full article


The title of this thread is a HOAX. PROTESTERS are not classified as ENEMY BELLIGERENTS

The OP completely MADE IT UP

and you ALL VOTED FOR IT

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Snarf]

The bill also states "...the President shall make the final determination" in the event of a disagreement between the secretary of defense and the attorney general.

If the Secretary of defense says "dissenters" are, but the Attorney General says they are not.. the puppet party leader decides.

Application of the geneva convention is not absolute, final determination depends on the opinions of politicians and their appointed lackeys... and there is NO due process to challenge "final determination".

I seem to recall bush and yoo formulating some brave new world opinions about torture not being torture as long as it's re-branded.. meaning there is NOTHING stopping odumba et al from contorting geneva into a polished turd of their own.

obama might decide "belonging to a Party to the conflict" means political Party (Party is in caps).. or party leader could decide "belonging to a party" means you're suspected of having a "good time", under this bill he can executive order anyone who tests positive for excessive fun in their urine to be labeled a belligerent enemy.. having no rights means regardless of how stupid dear leaders final determination, it cant be challenged.

Aside from being pure evil, IMO, this is a desperate sign "the man" knows he's losing both power and influence.. his MSM propaganda machine gets laughed at or ignored, his credibility a shambles... he can see it's time to shove a power grab tampon in the bleeding.

TPTB look nervous, otherwise they wouldn't be trying this hard to divide us at the same time grabbing as much rights limiting power to subjugate.. as they can, while they can.

From reading things here on ATS, is America becoming a Nazi Germany/Communist Russia style country.

Basically , disagree with the state and get ruined.

The biggest problem with this bill is it seems to give government officials the ability to bypass peer juries in any prosecution. Therefore, prosecutors would be able to persecute a dissident based on trumped up charges without being concerned about the dubious nature of the charges being exposed to scrutiny by a jury.

Our guaranteed right to a jury trial was enacted because of a belief that having the authorities as a the sole arbitrators of the fate of a defendant left too much room for abuse by those authorities. With regard to this bill, even if we take as a given that the intent written into it is good, without the measure of peer jury scrutiny, the bill could very easily be abused as a tool to persecute peaceful dissidents.

Originally posted by Snarf

ARTICLE FOUR OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

Do you belong to an organization with a command structure? I don't.

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

Perhaps you mean to imply that a protest sign qualifies under this language? I don't think it does.

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

I don't carry arms openly either. I don't carry arms at all, for that matter.

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (cut off, there is a lot more to read)

OK, maybe some of us qualify for this, since we probably won't be violating any of the laws and customs of war.

The title of this thread is a HOAX. PROTESTERS are not classified as ENEMY BELLIGERENTS

I think they easily could be.

I don't see how you believe that these articles of the Geneva convention apply to anyone (perhaps some militias who have a command hierarchy and uniforms with recognizable insignias.) I don't personally know of any group or person who meets the above criteria, and is thus ineligible to be classified as an "unprivileged belligerent". Do "9/11 truth groups" wear uniforms? Ever been to a protest with a leader who gave orders? (Maybe union protests?) I imagine if you were carrying arms openly, they wouldn't need to classify you, as you'd simply be in violation of domestic law.

Not seeing the protection here.

OP, I believe you are showing up very late to the party, with a misleading thread title and a bill that has a looooooooooooong way to go before it becomes a law.

"I'm just a bill, just a lonely bill, and I'm sitting here on capital hill"

Anyway, your thread is provocative only at first glance, there is no substance to be found here, and only those who fancy the immediate knee-jerk emotional reaction will contribute to is in a manner you would enjoy. I'm not sure why you posted this thread, but I know you can use your head in a more positive fashion than this. The patriot act enabled them to do as much and more a long, long time ago. This is nothing new.

the way things are going were going to have civil war.

There are two America's. the one for the rich and the one for the poor. Glen Beck keeps calling Obama a communist. I wish he was a communist. I would love to see some redistribution of wealth in this awful country. I'm so sick of the rich. I wish they were all dead. Deceased. Pushing up daisies.

the system works great for that 1% who have 90% of the worlds wealth. for the rest of us the system is not working. Laws like this are inevitably going to be used against dissenters who of course are poor and miserable and very very unhappy. All the dissenters get locked away and the rich get to continue to live like fat leeches on the American workers back. Parasites. I hope they all die.

Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

So in those particular "matters", would the President be personally liable if a gross mistake or error occurs?

Rhetorical Question of course.