Judge Napolitano: We are now under martial law. Everyone in this country is now a potential terroris

Originally posted by MegaMind

a joke?

What if your neighbor "rats" you out first? Maybe you better be extra nice to people from now on.

It's not a joke. It all depends. If my neighbor is stealing cable I could not care less. If he steals bread to feed his family, still don't care. It's when you break the law in a way that actually hurts people that you start to make me care. Little petty things where no one is really a victim don't matter to me.

When someone is arrested, under this law, on the suspicion of being a terrorist, does anyone else, like family, need to be informed?

If not, no one may know that a person has actually been arrested and detained. It will become a case of a missing person!

Theres no one to blame for this but you and me and everyone else who didnt do anything to stop this. History tends to repeat itself and no one paid attention and now we will have to deal with it.

Get ready people for its about to become official when the first arrests are made...what will YOU do?

2nd

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the congress, senate and most if not all of the supreme court, president, vice president and their cabinets respectfully, American citizens, too?

Maybe we can start calling the DHS and reporting all their un-American terroristic actions. Think the DHS will lock any of them up?

It's going to be so sad watching the ATS membership dwindle, as outspoken members are rounded up, just leaving the paid shills and us foreigners on here

Good luck Americans, it was nice knowing y'all!

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
It's going to be so sad watching the ATS membership dwindle, as outspoken members are rounded up, just leaving the paid shills and us foreigners on here

Good luck Americans, it was nice knowing y'all!

The US Government LOVES ATS.

It keeps the paranoid delusionals busy while they round up those that are ACTUAL threats.

reply to post by ReadyPower
I used to think that Obama would use marshell law to stay in power, now it is obvious that he will need these laws to round up and detain the mass's that will demonstrate when he is reelected.

How will he be reelected you say ? When either Newt or Ron Paul run on the independant ticket ,draw votes from the GOP candedate and it will be a walk for Obama.

My question is why would Newt or Paul do this knowing what would happen......................................unless this has been the plan all along?It would seem that TPTB have left nothing to chance.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by ccsct203
Where is the ACLU in all this???

The ACLU is on the same side as Rand Paul. They just usually don't get any publicity unless the right wing is complaining about some church/state issue.

www.thenation.com...

A dig at "right wingers" and "church/state" issues all in the same breath?

edit on 2011/12/15 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

So your position is the right wing DOESN'T rag on the ACLU? And that the media gives equal coverage to all ACLU issues? The former already happened on this thread.

It's not automatically a dig just because it's an accurate description.

www.guardian.co.uk...

I miss the 80's so much. Just watch M-TV. No news, no war, Big Ron, 600 ship Navy. Gotta invent a time machine and go back.

reply to post by darkbake


Let's get this right, please!!! The bill was endorsed by republicans because it is the annual defense bill and sec1031 that we are all upset about originally EXEMPTED American citizens from detention. The Obama administration forced it to be changed to INCLUDE American citizens. I am a conservative, but I am not playing the rep/dem game here....just the facts. I read the first 6 drafts of the bill and they all exempted US citizens from detention. I cannot find the revised version including US citizens that the Judge and others is talking about. We need to find the smoking gun.

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by nenothtu

A dig at "right wingers" and "church/state" issues all in the same breath?

edit on 2011/12/15 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

So your position is the right wing DOESN'T rag on the ACLU? And that the media gives equal coverage to all ACLU issues? The former already happened on this thread.

It's not automatically a dig just because it's an accurate description.

No.

My position is that if someone doesn't stop digging, the hole will soon be so deep you'll never see the sun ever again.

Have fun while you still can. I recommend a new shovel - the old one is about worn out. If you're gonna dig your own grave, do it with gusto!

We have been under marshall law already symbolically for years. Dont you notice how the press reports guilt before innocence. Check out the American flag you salute. Didnt think a pretty little gold fringe meant anything did you?

Well it does, it is the flag of a foreign country. That is your WARNING that you are entering into a foreign enclave, the same as if you are stepping into a foreign embassy and you will be under the jurisdiction of that flag. The flag with the gold or yellow fringe has no constitution, no laws, and no rules of court, and is not recognized by any nation on the earth, and is foreign to you and the United States of America.

MILITARY FLAG WITH THE GOLD FRINGE

Martial Law Flag "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military. The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.

You are subject under a military court. And you thought it was just pretty yellow fringe.

www.apfn.org...

In "occupied" America, people don't run government. Government runs the people!

reply to post by LordBaskettIV


Exactly, this country has slowly been giving it's rights away for over a hundred years. Now
the Progressives have found the weakness and are breaking the foundation down. We were warned 200 years ago about this happening and hear it is.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by DelMarvel


No.

My position is that if someone doesn't stop digging, the hole will soon be so deep you'll never see the sun ever again.

Have fun while you still can. I recommend a new shovel - the old one is about worn out. If you're gonna dig your own grave, do it with gusto!

edit on 2011/12/15 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

And you've basically said nothing here.

Expanding on my point, the ACLU is on the "good" side of quite a few of the concerns repeatedly expressed on this site, yet still get ragged by those who one can only presume are influenced directly or indirectly by the bad press generated from very selective complaints usually originating from the usual suspects from certain portions of the political spectrum. Even those "conservative" legislators who get support from the ACLU on some issues frequently keep silent about it for fear of political fallout.

I don't feel confident delving into law, there are probably 1 million laws that we are subject to, but this one seems to say that

you are a terroist if you commit a hostile act.




www.gpo.gov...

at this link see page 441 line 13

the definition of hostile

hos·tile (hstl, -tl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of an enemy: hostile forces; hostile acts.
2. Feeling or showing enmity or ill will; antagonistic: a hostile remark.
3. Unfavorable to health or well-being; inhospitable or adverse: a hostile climate.
n.
1. An antagonistic person or thing.
2. An enemy in warfare.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Latin hostlis, from hostis, enemy; see ghos-ti- in Indo-European roots.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hostile·ly adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hostile [ˈhɒstaɪl]
adj
1. antagonistic; opposed
2. of or relating to an enemy
3. unfriendly
n
a hostile person; enemy
[from Latin hostīlis, from hostis enemy]
hostilely adv
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

includes the definitions unfriendly and opposed..

So line 13 section 1034 of HR 1540 says you are a terrorist if you are opposed or unfriendly to anything

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by nenothtu


No.

My position is that if someone doesn't stop digging, the hole will soon be so deep you'll never see the sun ever again.

Have fun while you still can. I recommend a new shovel - the old one is about worn out. If you're gonna dig your own grave, do it with gusto!

edit on 2011/12/15 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

And you've basically said nothing here.

Expanding on my point, the ACLU is on the "good" side of quite a few of the concerns repeatedly expressed on this site, yet still get ragged by those who one can only presume are influenced directly or indirectly by the bad press generated from very selective complaints usually originating from the usual suspects from certain portions of the political spectrum. Even those "conservative" legislators who get support from the ACLU on some issues frequently keep silent about it for fear of political fallout.

No problem. I didn't really expect you to grasp what I'm saying, I just needed to say it, in case someone, somewhere, gets it.

Enjoy your partisan politics while you still can, and have a nice day.

Has anything about the NDAA been brought up on the news outlets?
I doubt it, but I'm just curious.

reply to post by SmoothCriminal22


www.foxnews.com...


The second provision would deny suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. It reaffirms the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants.

The provision includes a Senate-passed compromise that says nothing in the legislation may 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."

Conservative Republicans, Democrats and civil rights groups have warned that the provision would allow the government to hold U.S. citizens indefinitely.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...