Bill Authorizing Indefinite Military Arrests Of U.S. Citizens on Senate Floor Monday

[Failed]

These are scary times!

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-se...-define-being/

[BIGTYMER]

Man this country is going to shit..

[oscer]

That would be Ridiculous if they pass some damn socialist shit like that but then again .... the citizens have lost control of this country and until they take it back need to deal with whats happening

[Failed]

Originally Posted by BIGTYMER

Man this country is going to shit..

And fast...

An American police state has been debated before on this forum. If this bill passes, the President would have the power to authorize the military to pick up American citizens and imprison them without charges or trial. The debate would clearly be over.

[Mutt]

if they can re-write the bill so it defines exactly who can be detained indefinitely it would help - if they restrict it to dirty hippy commies and muslims i think it's a bill the majority will support.

[uno]

Haven't Lieberman and McCain been trying to pass whacky bills like this for the past decade?

[DWB]

Not sure how many more signs you need. Get out while you still can.

Life is pretty damn good abroad.

[Captain Kawaii]

Nothing like a little pre-emptive legislation to kill the OWS movement if it gets out of hand...

See you soon, DWB...

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

See you soon, DWB...

[glamourmodels]

And yet you idiots still wont support Ron Paul. I guess you cant read very well DWB, they can come anywhere in the world to get you.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president?and every future president ? the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night?s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

"You get the government you deserve" - Thomas Jefferson

Originally Posted by DWB

Not sure how many more signs you need. Get out while you still can.

Life is pretty damn good abroad.

[nextri]

That is so ridiculous it's not even funny..

[pornguy]

thing is DWB,. with something like that it does not matter where you are. they will come and get you.

Then it turns into a fight of keeping your ass in the country you moved to.

[ajrocks]

God am I glad I moved out of that crazy place. I thought Bush was bad, but it looks like everyone in power in the US is a nut case control freak. Good luck with this guys.

[wehateporn]

If the bill passes then it will be legal, if it doesn't they'll still go after these people one way or another

[wehateporn]

The major Tax Exempt Foundations, who are known to be behind the wars that involve the US, have been showing our teens these adverts. Teaching them to comply when the time comes

[IllTestYourGirls]

Why do you need a bill? Obama has already set precedent that a president can assassinate US citizens without trial.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

The major Tax Exempt Foundations, who are known to be behind the wars that involve the US, have been showing our teens these adverts. Teaching them to comply when the time comes

Aren't those ads suggesting not to comply? Looks to me like they are suggesting revolt.


.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by BIGTYMER

Man this country is going to shit..

Amen BROmance.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by Caligari

Aren't those ads suggesting not to comply? Looks to me like they are suggesting revolt.


.

The way I see it is that if there were going to be evacuations they would need people to quickly comply and leave their houses, without having a chance to think. If people started thinking.."I want to bring some stuff with me".."Won't we be safer in the house?"..."Are you really going to look after us?"...then you could end up with people resisting. This generation is in the frame of mind where we wouldn't take an evacuation seriously, this could mess up the whole thing, if enough people have the time to work out that they're better off in their homes the plan will fail. In the advert no one resists or starts collecting stuff together, I believe the youth of today are being shown what they need to do when the time comes. We should not trust anything that these Tax Exempt Foundations are behind, their agenda is known, they've said it in their own words, they want America involved in a war so as to bring about change, eventually to move us into Communism, giving those behind the foundations a monopoly; they will benefit, not us

[crockett]

Don't worry, Obama has already said he will Veto the bill if the Detainee issues are not removed, as well as other issues with-in it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s_20111117.pdf


Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.


Any bill that challenges or constrains the President's critical authorities to collect intelligence,
incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President's senior
advisers to recommend a veto.



The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult.




Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or remove it entirely, as the
Administration and the chairs of several congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters have advocated, the revised text merely directs the President to develop procedures to ensure the myriad problems that would result from such a requirement do not come to fruition.



ie.. it gets vetoed..

Not to mention he also slapped them on the face for trying to sneak unrequested funding into the bill..



Unrequested Authorization Increases: Although not the only examples in S. 1867, the
Administration notes and objects to the addition of $240 million and $200 million, respectively, in unrequested authorization for unneeded upgrades to M-1 Abrams tanks and Rapid Innovation Program research and development in this fiscally constrained environment. The Administration believes the amounts appropriated in FY 2011 and requested in FY 2012 fully fund DoD's requirements in these areas.

[Dirty F]

Land of the free, home of the brave.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by crockett

Don't worry, Obama has already said he will Veto the bill if the Detainee issues are not removed..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s_20111117.pdf

ie.. it gets vetoed..

Yeah Obama is more of a kill them with a drone attack rather than detain them kinda guy.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

The way I see it is that if there were going to be evacuations they would need people to quickly comply and leave their houses, without having a chance to think. If people started thinking.."I want to bring some stuff with me".."Won't we be safer in the house?"..."Are you really going to look after us?"...then you could end up with people resisting.

But those ads are saying "the holocaust happened to people like us" which suggests that they are saying "screw this shit"

and of course the "recall congress" type of message at the end would further suggest this-

.

[bignasty]

Originally Posted by Caligari

Aren't those ads suggesting not to comply? Looks to me like they are suggesting revolt.


.

That's the impression I got as well.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Yeah Obama is more of a kill them with a drone attack rather than detain them kinda guy.

Seems to work..

[theking]

More bills are proposed than get passed. Even if the bill passed the President can veto it. Even if the President didn't veto it...it would be challenged in Federal Court and ultimately it would be the Supreme Court that decides what parts...if any...are constitutional...just as they did with the Patriot Act...parts of which were found to be unconstitutional.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by Caligari

But those ads are saying "the holocaust happened to people like us" which suggests that they are saying "screw this shit"

.

On a conscious level absolutely, whereas below our conscious perception I believe the subliminal content is to make use comply

[raymor]

Does anyone have a link to any news organization anywhere covering this, or better yet a reference to what part of the bill the aclu is even talking about, so we can read it and see what it actually says? I don't like to make up my mind based on only the claims of a single advocacy group. From what I can find, neither liberal leaning CNN nor conservative leaning Fox News have found this worth even mentioning. Often the ACLU is right, but they are also often full of it.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

On a conscious level absolutely, whereas below our conscious perception I believe the subliminal content is to make use comply

Not seeing that at all, from all levels this is sending an anti-police state message and I am amazed this is coming from MTV which is typically a bastion of brain drain stupidity.

Although I wouldn't mind seeing them round up all members of Jersey Shore;)



.

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Why do you need a bill? Obama has already set precedent that a president can assassinate US citizens without trial.

Just imagine if John McCain would've won the election. He probably would have issued this as an executive order by now.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

Just imagine if John McCain would've won the election. He probably would have issued this as an executive order by now.

I dont get what you mean? Obama has already done this by executive order. Or at least direct order.

[Redrob]

I'd expect this kiind of BS from the Syrian or Egyptian governments: not our.

Just when everybody gets busy with Christmas shopping and decorating, you see this kind of BS come out of committees for a vote without even a single hearing.

Scary shit for your grandchildren to deal with.

The US news media is pretty much bought off on the War on Terror in my opinion.

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

I dont get what you mean? Obama has already done this by executive order. Or at least direct order.

I'm talking about this senate bill. McCain is the most hawkish politician on capitol hill, if you don't think he would've taken the same exact steps in fighting the war on terror that Obama has, and then some...well, then I got a bridge I could sell you.

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

The major Tax Exempt Foundations, who are known to be behind the wars that involve the US, have been showing our teens these adverts. Teaching them to comply when the time comes

how can you interpret the commercial like that. that's completely wrong.

it's a warning about a police state.

and which Tax Exempt Foundations are behind what wars? proof?

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

On a conscious level absolutely, whereas below our conscious perception I believe the subliminal content is to make use comply

it's called paranoid schizophrenia.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by Caligari

Not seeing that at all, from all levels this is sending an anti-police state message and I am amazed this is coming from MTV which is typically a bastion of brain drain stupidity.

Although I wouldn't mind seeing them round up all members of Jersey Shore;)

.

@ Jersey Shore

Some will say it's Predictive Programming, so as our subconscious expects it, like how they told us "There's a Pandemic coming" then a so-called 'Pandemic' did arrive. If we are already familiar with an idea in advance, then when it arrives there is less resistance and commotion

MTV plays an important role, as it is a way of influencing a hard-to-reach age group. These adverts are from Think MTV, they partner with many of the major tax exempt organisations

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by porno jew

how can you interpret the commercial like that. that's completely wrong.

it's a warning about a police state.

I agree, but don't you find it extremely interesting that MTV would make these videos now?

Seriously, what the hell is going on?

MTV
The Ashley Simpson Show.
Jersey Shore.
America's Best Dance Crew.
Britney: For The Record.
Police State Warning.


.

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by porno jew

how can you interpret the commercial like that. that's completely wrong.

it's a warning about a police state.

and which Tax Exempt Foundations are behind what wars? proof?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...y-6260128.html

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by porno jew

and which Tax Exempt Foundations are behind what wars? proof?

Here's Norman Dodd (RIP), chief investigator of the Reece Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations

Here's an extract of what he says in the interview

"We're back in nineteen hundred and eight, and the trustees meet, and they raise this question among themselves: Namely, is there any means besides war, known to man, more capable, assuming you wish to alter the life of entire people."

Question: Now these are the trustees of the Carnegie Foundation?

"Mr. Dodd: "That's right, and they discuss this question in a very learned fashion for approximately a year, and come up with a conclusion that: War is the most effective means known to man assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people.

"So then they bring up a second question namely: How do we involve the United States in a war? And I doubt in nineteen hundred and nine there was any subject more removed from the minds of us as a people, than our involvement in a war. There were shows going on in the Balkans and most of the people of this country hardly knew the Balkans were. And they conclude that: They must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States.

"And that raises question number 3, namely how do we secure that control? and the answer comes out we must control the State Department. And, from that time on, their activities were centered on: securring control of the State Department. Now as a means to that end, the Endowment founded and instrumentality called the Council for Learned Society. And that Council was assigned the task of passing on every high official appointment of the State Department before the appointment was confirmed. At that point this finding linked up with what we had already suspected. But nevertheless here was confirmation of it.

"Well this happened, and, pretty soon the country was in a war which became to be known, of course, as World War I. And this group of trustees at one point congratulated themselves on the wisdom of the original decision. Because, as they put it, war has demonstrated a power to alter the life of the people of this country already.

"And then their interest went on seeing to it we as a people did not revert to our customs and our practices which prevailed prior to the outbreak of World War I. And they decided after the war was over that that meant we had to control education of the United States.

"And so they realized this was a very prodigious task. So they approached the Rockefeller Foundation and made the suggestion that the Rockefeller Foundation take on half the problem, and they retained the other half. They divided it between those subjects which were domestic in their significance and those which were international.

"And they, together, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment, decided that the crux of the matter lay in their ability to alter the teaching of American History in this country. So they approached the then three of the most prominent historians, with that suggestion and they were turned down flat. So then they decided they would have to build their own stable of historians. And so they then approached the Guggenheim Foundation which specialized in awarding fellowships, and said figuratively, 'When we find a likely young man who's headed to become a teacher of American history, and will you grant him on our say so a fellowship?' And the answer was, yes we will. So they gradually assembled twenty. And they took these twenty to England, London. And there they briefed them to what was expected of them. And that became the nucleus of the American Historical Association. To which ultimately the Endowment made a grant of four hundred thousand dollars for a study to be made, which would conclude what the future of this country was to be.

[wehateporn]

The tax exempt Lucis Trust (based in United Nations Plaza) were caught registering one of the OWS websites, they obviously didn't know that someone could easily look up the owner http://lalternativaitalia.blogspot.c...ll-street.html

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by oscer

That would be Ridiculous if they pass some damn socialist shit like that but then again .... the citizens have lost control of this country and until they take it back need to deal with whats happening

This is not socialist it's Fascist ...

[T]he original 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was indeed passed with the intent of removing the Army from domestic law enforcement. Posse comitatus means ?the power of the county,? reflecting the inherent power of the old West county sheriff to call upon a posse of able-bodied men to supplement law enforcement assets and thereby maintain the peace. ...

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/jour...trebilcock.htm

If this becomes and enrolled law;

Expect court challenges arguing the new law's conflicts with the precedents of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by theking

More bills are proposed than get passed. Even if the bill passed the President can veto it. Even if the President didn't veto it...it would be challenged in Federal Court and ultimately it would be the Supreme Court that decides what parts...if any...are constitutional...just as they did with the Patriot Act...parts of which were found to be unconstitutional.

Well said, bills come and go more than we can count. It would never get thru congress.

[porno jew]

anti-communist paranoid and kook.

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Here's Norman Dodd (RIP), chief investigator of the Reece Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations

Here's an extract of what he says in the interview

"We're back in nineteen hundred and eight, and the trustees meet, and they raise this question among themselves: Namely, is there any means besides war, known to man, more capable, assuming you wish to alter the life of entire people."

Question: Now these are the trustees of the Carnegie Foundation?

"Mr. Dodd: "That's right, and they discuss this question in a very learned fashion for approximately a year, and come up with a conclusion that: War is the most effective means known to man assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people.

"So then they bring up a second question namely: How do we involve the United States in a war? And I doubt in nineteen hundred and nine there was any subject more removed from the minds of us as a people, than our involvement in a war. There were shows going on in the Balkans and most of the people of this country hardly knew the Balkans were. And they conclude that: They must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States.

"And that raises question number 3, namely how do we secure that control? and the answer comes out we must control the State Department. And, from that time on, their activities were centered on: securring control of the State Department. Now as a means to that end, the Endowment founded and instrumentality called the Council for Learned Society. And that Council was assigned the task of passing on every high official appointment of the State Department before the appointment was confirmed. At that point this finding linked up with what we had already suspected. But nevertheless here was confirmation of it.

"Well this happened, and, pretty soon the country was in a war which became to be known, of course, as World War I. And this group of trustees at one point congratulated themselves on the wisdom of the original decision. Because, as they put it, war has demonstrated a power to alter the life of the people of this country already.

"And then their interest went on seeing to it we as a people did not revert to our customs and our practices which prevailed prior to the outbreak of World War I. And they decided after the war was over that that meant we had to control education of the United States.

"And so they realized this was a very prodigious task. So they approached the Rockefeller Foundation and made the suggestion that the Rockefeller Foundation take on half the problem, and they retained the other half. They divided it between those subjects which were domestic in their significance and those which were international.

"And they, together, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment, decided that the crux of the matter lay in their ability to alter the teaching of American History in this country. So they approached the then three of the most prominent historians, with that suggestion and they were turned down flat. So then they decided they would have to build their own stable of historians. And so they then approached the Guggenheim Foundation which specialized in awarding fellowships, and said figuratively, 'When we find a likely young man who's headed to become a teacher of American history, and will you grant him on our say so a fellowship?' And the answer was, yes we will. So they gradually assembled twenty. And they took these twenty to England, London. And there they briefed them to what was expected of them. And that became the nucleus of the American Historical Association. To which ultimately the Endowment made a grant of four hundred thousand dollars for a study to be made, which would conclude what the future of this country was to be.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by porno jew

anti-communist paranoid and kook.

You've been provided with the information, as have others reading the thread, so that's my job done

It's up to you how you choose to interpret it and if you would prefer to disregard Norman's lifetime research

[oscer]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

This is not socialist it's Fascist ...

Fair enough !

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

You've been provided with the information, as have others reading the thread, so that's my job done

It's up to you how you choose to interpret it and if you would prefer to disregard Norman's lifetime research

actually i watched it again and got the subliminal message in it. he is really trying to say that tax exempt foundations are actually working to create conditions of maximum freedom and liberation. watch the video again.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

The major Tax Exempt Foundations, who are known to be behind the wars that involve the US, have been showing our teens these adverts. Teaching them to comply when the time comes

http://vodpod.com/watch/3494441-m-i-a-born-free

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

http://vodpod.com/watch/3494441-m-i-a-born-free

Yikes, the poor Gingers

That's a good video!

[Minte]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

I'm talking about this senate bill. McCain is the most hawkish politician on capitol hill, if you don't think he would've taken the same exact steps in fighting the war on terror that Obama has, and then some...well, then I got a bridge I could sell you.

There was a reason obama got elected... CHANGE!

Not exactly working out like the people that elected him thought it would.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

I'm talking about this senate bill. McCain is the most hawkish politician on capitol hill, if you don't think he would've taken the same exact steps in fighting the war on terror that Obama has, and then some...well, then I got a bridge I could sell you.

You have to be kidding. Obama's stance was to finish up Iraq as fast as possible and get us out and redirect focus on Afghan and other hot spots like Pakistan boarders.

McCain was all for dragging out Iraq and keeping Afghan as the forgotten war. The reason being Iraq war was much more profitable for US business interest. The reality was it was US contractors milking the tax payers dry vs real economic growth from re-developing the country of Iraq.

Remember Bush claiming the rebuilding of Iraq would come from their oil sales? Umm yeah .. opps sorry guys, guess he got that one wrong, It's you the tax payers whom are flipping the bill.

The two couldn't have been completely further apart on their views of the so called war on terror. McCain would have continued a losing Bush strategy that would have probably bankrupted this country.