It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
Citing UN law does apply to the United States and it would be ignorant to say otherwise. The United States is a signatory to the UN Charter as a member state of the United Nations, therefor it must adhere to the Charter of the United States, any UN Security Council Resolutions passed against it (which would be impossible as the US has veto power) and any treaties it is a signatory of.
I know most Americans here like to deny the authority of the UN and simply label is as some New World Order conspiracy, but the underlying factor of it is that the US is bound to the UN charter by way of international law.
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Brothers and sisters of humanity, members of comity of nations(Comitas gentium), It is love that drives me, truth that seeks no apology, peace that we must all aspire to attain, yet reach, and justice that will deliver us all! Shall I live in fear for drafting this writ, a loud cry for freedom, with intent to shake the marrow of bones, or shall we stand against a common enemy, as one. I shall enforce the Constitution!!! Anything to the contrary, notwithstanding!!! Never abandon or wave any of your rights. If they are returning the child why did they hold him for over an hour.
Idaho Falls and Ammon police took my child though they say he did not breach the peace, when asked to properly identify them with proof of Delegation of Authority Order or D.O. A.O, they insisted they did not have to have these proofs. They also admitted that they were a corporation. Moors please study and know your rights. Yes they did return my child, and all rushed away. He was just walking . This is for all the times police beat my grandmother. Please note I do not hate Europeans, this is about love, and as well was to prove a point by dismantling deceptive hate and colonialism policies. Thank you to my study partner Sis Anaid El Bey, R.V Bey Publications, and My Wife You are witnessing the Rise of the Moors! Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law This is not about race, as only one race is on the planet. The human race, divided into nationalities. The terms, black and white are brands, used to place those who accept them under color of law. Thus black fountain, white fountain, colored, negro, et talia. Enforce that Constitution! Peace to Noble Drew Ali, And Brother Taj Tarik Bey Ali Lord Noble Fun'Tayus Flewellen El
Originally posted by sempul
wow after 2 minutes of this i just wanted to punch this guy in the mouth! i think there is 5 cops there probably because of him! what a retarded piece of trash spouting gibberish about laws and orginizations that he has no knowledge about! just because you through out names and numbers does not make you right. you guys might want to check some of that before you try and do the same. as Voltaire once said "A witty saying proves nothing"
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by macman
Actually they can. Just cause the officers wear a uniform does not stop them from using their civil rights against a person. And in this case, they may very well have a case for such, as the gentleman who shot the video tape put this on youtube. While it may seem trivial, it all depends on what happens next in this case. If the guy does nothing to persue this, then chances are they could drop the entire matter, however, if he chooses to persue this, then could bring charges against him in a civil case, or even counter sue him on those grounds, using this video and the fact he posted such on the internet as a means to slander and for defamation of character. He did such to be malicious, and in an attempt to cause them grief with the general public and with their point of employment. As the video tape showed really no wrong doing on their part, no violence, no abuse of authority, not even anyone getting attacked by them, shot or injured the question must be asked as to why post it then? The only conclusion would be to cause them strife and harm, including to create an air of adversity with malicious intent to either get them fired or to put them into harms way.
Make no mistake, I am very much for video taping the police and their actions, but such should also be done with the responsiblity to show both the good and the bad parts of what the police are doing, not to be malicious or with the intent to damage the credibility of the police. His posting of this video, when there is obviously nothing there to warrent such, the quesiton would be raised as to why do such?
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
the man said they picked up his son without cause, and the police didn't disagree, so i'm going to assume they were being racist.
Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by ishari
The headline of the thread is very misleading.
The guy calls them kidnappers.
How are you being miss-led?
Originally posted by jonco6
reply to post by macman
dosnt matter if they arnt going to arrest him their is no reason to pick him up it becomes kidnapping when they refuse to let the child out of the car with no reason to hold him I assume if they had one they would have stated it other than saying o we came to drop off your kid but ya it would be nice to have the full story on record at least then we would know why they picked him up in the first place and could complain accordingly if nessary. I think their has to be a reason with the get in the house at the end sounded like some one was introuble.
Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by macman
Citing UN law does apply to the United States and it would be ignorant to say otherwise. The United States is a signatory to the UN Charter as a member state of the United Nations, therefor it must adhere to the Charter of the United States, any UN Security Council Resolutions passed against it (which would be impossible as the US has veto power) and any treaties it is a signatory of.
I know most Americans here like to deny the authority of the UN and simply label is as some New World Order conspiracy, but the underlying factor of it is that the US is bound to the UN charter by way of international law.
York claims his people are Moors who traveled by foot from Africa to what is currently Georgia before the continental drift.
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by ishari
The headline of the thread is very misleading.
The guy calls them kidnappers.
How are you being miss-led?
Just because he calls them kidnappers, does not mean anything, as the evidence as a whole, The Video, shows the child being returned to the home.
So, yes it is miss-leading.
Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by macman
Ok, I second the applause to anyone who stands up to police. But, he is a kook. Citing UN law does not apply to the US. Entertaining, but please learn, argue law, not poetic philosophical debate based in One World philosophies. .
That goes along with my notion."were they trying to get away from this guy"edit on 31-7-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
I love how the man is rambling incoherently (Since when did the Moors live in North America?), yet because he was challenging cops, 90% of ATS agrees with him.