S1867 and you, a US citzen

Some things you should know, If S 1867 becomes law this bill gives the DoD Department of Defense to call you a Terrorist, if you are considered Belligerent here on US soil so what does this mean? lets star with Belligerent
www.merriam-webster.com... from the link as McCain took it

1
: waging war; specifically : belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war

as to what it means to you and I

2
: inclined to or exhibiting assertiveness, hostility, or combativeness

Now if this bill becomes law
[ I think it will ] the NG will be the ones handling protesters and mass mobs, or Union picket lines and such for the reason being, law of war and the USA being for the first time sense the civil war called a Battlefield, what does this mean???
If you decide to make waves against the US, cause civil unrest, in any way you will be deemed Belligerent
thus giving up your citizen ship automatically for one term is applied here,
[USA is a Battlefield] the rules of war apply,
stick's stone's clubs and harsh threatening words or acts, hitting a LEO with your protest sign will be considered a Belligerent act. I ask one question

Do you get this now??

A citizen is not at risk , a citizen would be the sheep doing as what is told of them, going about their daily task say nothing about the way things are. letting the draft become law, allowing more wars to come, the low and mid class paying the way for the 1%, not saying one bad word about it.
"I am mad as he!!, not going to take this Sh!t anymore"

If you do, then your "hostile" to the US GOV say this to a news crew and your acting in a Belligerent manner.
Do you get this now????
"
The National Guard can not be used, there must be martial law declared"

No not so, it can be used with more powers than now, hit a NG with you sign can he/she use deadly force???
Yes they can, your in a war front now miss USA your a Battlefield now, whole new ball game, you thought the TSA DHS was bad, you aint seen nothing yet.
Tanks and jeeps and such driving down main street ??
Could happen if an other act like 9/11 of OK city,
what does this mean for OWS???
Hostel acts towards US citizens or US GOV will not be tolerated.
Block the way to a bank , sit on top of the Federal Building steps waving your signs in people faces, blocking the door so it is hard for people to come or go side walk too as well as the Street, all are Hostility acts, let alone being, Belligerent act's
DO YOU GET IT NOW
mods, if this is in the wrong spot, you know what to do.

What about hostile acts that are done to citizens by government employees?

Example - A peaceful protest, a cop in riot gear pushes you out of the way, would it make the cop a terrorist? and can the citizens then use deadly force because they were pushed?

This has been defeated.

Terrorist Act

reply to post by haarvik
No the section's 1031 and 1032 are still part of the bill what was defeated was , well lets see it from your link

Sen. Paul Statement on Defeat of Detainee Amendment
Dec 1, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Tonight, Sen. Rand Paul prevented the passage of an amendment that would have further eroded Americans' constitutional rights. Offered to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274 would have allowed the U.S. government to detain an American citizen indefinitely, even after they had been tried and found not guilty, until Congress declares an end to the war on terror.

so you can still be detained but just not indefinitely.

reply to post by mileslong54
unfortunately not, for the cop or LEO is for the GOV. You on the other hand is a protestor, you are the terrorist, you have no rights, for we, the US, are at war and the USA is a Battlefield.
do you see how John McCain and Lindsey Graham, did this here is a out take of the provision

Under the 'worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial' provision of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor Monday, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said South Carolina's left-wing Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who supports the bill.

be back with the link. from this link www.presstv.ir...

God forbid an American citizen be 'assertive'.

Holy Crap! What has our country become?

Originally posted by haarvik
This has been defeated.

Terrorist Act

Thanks for posting the link to this.

I noticed that there has been a lot of chatter on ATS about this particular bill and amendment. It's nice to know that it has been defeated.

I have been labled beligerant, I am sure. Thank god and the beligerant founders of the USA, now I won't be sniped as I leave work by my own military.

reply to post by bekod

The executive branch has maintained the authority to keep citizen combatants in military custody for years, and the Supreme Court has backed them up (with a few caveats). The White House objects to S.1867 because it is allegedly upsetting the delicate balance of powers achieved between the executive and judicial branches. What that really means is those pesky elected representatives are establishing limits and an oversight mechanism over the President's almost unlimited wartime detention power, and he hates that.

Personally, I prefer to have the government's authority spelled out in legislation instead of secret executive branch memoranda and whims of the Court. It means there's less opportunity for abuse, and gives the Court clearer guidance on the role of government. I like that the bill requires the executive branch to present covered person determination procedures to Congress. As things stand now, Obama can declare practically anyone an enemy under the 2001 AUMF; he need only "determine" that someone has supported Al Qaeda, and he can detain them. This would be very hard to abuse, for practical reasons, but it's better to have the legal protection offered by S.1867: under this bill, the President must explain to Congress who makes that determination and how they do it. This is a huge win for civil liberties, and a staggering reduction in President's wartime powers. Which makes me wonder who's really behind the whisper campaign against S.1867.

if your wondering war the law of means www.armystudyguide.com... there is a sub section from the link

Protected Persons Status
(GC, Art. 4, 5; FM 27-10, para. 247, 248)

Includes Civilian NON-Combatants & Unlawful Combatants in the Hands of a "Foreign Party" to the Conflict or Occupying Power.

All Persons Who do NOT Qualify for POW Status who have Engaged in Hostile or Belligerent Conduct.

If Unsure About a Captive's Status?

Treat captive as a POW until Article 5 Tribunal determines otherwise. (GPW, Art. 5; FM 27-10, para. 71)

any questions???

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
your for this s1867???? you do realize this will tear apart the USofA don't you??

WOW this thread died a quick death. just wish the bill would do the same, to many open interpretation's to leave as is sec 1031 and 1032, even though your are no longer held indefinitely, you still will be held till the Gov says so, when ever that will be. The bill as a whole I do not have a problem with it is just the 1031 and 1032 that i do. clear that up then yes the bill can pass.

If your still not sure what this 1031 and 1032 does in the US if it does become law check this out www.grin.com... from the link

Lawful combatants cannot be prosecuted for lawful acts of war, but just for the violations of international humanitarian law3. Lawful combatants are thus entitled to prisoners of war status (hereinafter POW status) which has the character of shield protecting such combatants from being responsible for acts otherwise constituting offence. Attached non-combatants (religious personnel and medical personnel) are not considered combatants, but if captured they enjoy the same protection as POW.

now for fog of war part

Under the category of non-combatants fall civilians (that is persons who are not attached directly or indirectly to armed forces) providing that they don’t take direct and active part in hostilities. Combatants can withdraw from hostilities, either by retiring and becoming civilians or by hors de combat, either by choice (laying down of arms and surrendering) or by force (getting wounded, sick or shipwrecked).4 The category of unlawful combatants as category falling between the categories of lawful combatants and civilians is of a controversial character. The controversy of such category is given by nonexistence expressis verbis of such category in any international instruments on laws of wars. Unlawful combatants/belligerents can be however considered persons taking direct part in hostilities without being entitled to do so and who therefore cannot be classified as POW under the capture by the power of the enemy5.

some explanations are in need: this is before 9/11, and before S1867: the term, by hors de combat meaning

unable to do something because you have been injured

from this link www.macmillandictionary.com...
If your thinking your protected by the US bill of right and the amendments your mistaken ok it wik waky pedia but hay it is ref only en.wikipedia.org... from the link

The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006,[1] also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress[2] signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,[3] the Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes."[4]

As long as there is wording in this S1867 sub sec D 1031... 1032, that could make any one a "Hostile or Belligerent person" I will make a fuss for it is too open and can be missed used, Now a Civilian does not have to worry nor does a US citizen unless he or she

providing that they don’t take direct and active part in hostilities

now what are hostilities or a Belligerent like manner? Who makes the Judgement call er determines what the words mean, whom it applies to, and who can be held , yea see 1031 1032 and the US is a battlefield the rules and laws of war are in play. keep this in mind the next time you take a photo, of that dam bridge or building

I was remembering some text on the word belligerent and McCain , then I remembered this en.wikipedia.org... does this not seem recognizable? from the link

The bill proceeds to define an "unprivileged enemy belligerent" as an individual who:

has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
was a part of al Qaeda at the time of capture.

It would be nice to put this and 1031 1032 side by side and see how they are almost the same

welcome to the party.. now you will see what the rest of the world has endured and continues to experience at the hands of youre beloved u.s government and its minions..

america is about to get a very good look at the true face of its government... hope you guys are prepared..
very dark days have arrived ...

reply to post by Expat888
well we still have ,for now the 2nd amendment, that is just what is keeping them at bay for now, once "we the people" loses that right then it well be a whole new ball game
executive order 10999 president

Does this ring a bell ?

The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State. — Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

So the PTW can no shield people from the political, economic and or military consequences of their Ponzi Scheme Inflationary Lie.