British Spy Obama/Soetoro signs illegal NDAA for NATO extermination of Americans

Author Topic: British Spy Obama/Soetoro signs illegal NDAA for NATO extermination of Americans  (Read 112125 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NMTO

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • All Will Stand
Am I correct that all of the amendments to clarify this bill failed...feinteins (sp?) included?

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
sorry folks I was tired last night and posted wrong info  on one item. amdt 1456 passed.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Feinstein Amdt. No. 1456 )
Vote Number: 215 Vote Date: December 1, 2011, 06:36 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1456 to S. 1867 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012)
Statement of Purpose: Of a perfecting nature.
Vote Counts: YEAs 99 NAYs 1

I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
What you need to know about the National Defense Authorization Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiTPSKM0lek&feature=player_embedded#!
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
This is who can be arrested:

"SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

 (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

 (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

 (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

So it lists the following:

1. al-Qaeda
2. Taliban
3. associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ( what is definition of Associated forces )?

4. including any person who has committed a belligerent act
5. has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces

So, don't be belligerent, be a terrorist or aid terrorist, you should be fine.
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
The best way to stop this is to stop feeding the beast.. STOP PAYING TAXES!! Have a tax revolt and put all who voted for s.1867 on trial for treason.
 
Our Government has become a Tyrant Nazi Regime and should be dealt with by lethal force if need be.

Voting the evil out in 2012 and replacing them with a lesser evil solves nothing. We The People are given the right to take down a Tyrant Government , read the Constitution and use your rights for once in your life when it is needed.
 
I believe we have let things go too long and now about the only way we have of changing our Government is a full blown Revolution as the elected officials in D.C. laugh at your emails and phone calls while calling us subjects to be controlled.
 
We are in the same position now as what our founding fathers were just before the American revolution began.
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline DireWolf

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Freedom, Liberty & death to the NWO
They're playing theater with our lives. Bastards!

This has been happening all along it is just now they feel they have the chance to legitimize their Tyranny by slapping the title of law on it while the masses continue to be blissfully catatonic. 
Freedom and Liberty, or slavery and death, your choice, choose wisely.

Offline Pleasured

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
bel·lig·er·ent  (b-ljr-nt)
adj.
1. Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.
2. Of, pertaining to, or engaged in warfare.
n.
One that is hostile or aggressive, especially one that is engaged in war.
[Latin belligerns, belligerant-, present participle of belligerre, to wage war, from belliger, warlike : bellum, war + gerere, to make.]
bel·liger·ent·ly adv.
Synonyms: belligerent, bellicose, pugnacious, contentious, quarrelsome
These adjectives mean having or showing an eagerness to fight. Belligerent refers to a tendency to hostile behavior: A belligerent reporter badgered the politician.
Bellicose and pugnacious suggest a natural disposition to fight: "All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose" (H.L. Mencken). A good litigator needs a pugnacious intellect.
Contentious implies chronic argumentativeness: "His style has been described variously as abrasive and contentious, overbearing and pompous" (Victor Merina).
Quarrelsome suggests bad temper and a perverse readiness to bicker: "The men gave him much room, for he was notorious as a quarrelsome person when drunk" (Stephen Crane).



It's too broad, just getting upset in any way could be interpreted as Belligerent >:( ???

Offline global_fiefdom

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
If you are detained and end up protesting receiving no water they would hold you for being belligerent.

There really isn't a limit when the law becomes so NEBULOUS.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
This is who can be arrested:

"SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

 (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

 (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

 (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."


So it lists the following:

1. al-Qaeda
2. Taliban
3. associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ( what is definition of Associated forces )?

4. including any person who has committed a belligerent act
5. has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces

So, don't be belligerent, be a terrorist or aid terrorist, you should be fine.


THIS INCLUDES MOST OF THE CIA, THE BUSHES, THE ROCKEFELLERS, THE ROTHSCHILDS, THE CHENEYS, ALL MEMBERS OF PNAC, AEI, CFR, HERITAGE, AND BROOKINGS.

EVERY NGO CONTRACTOR, FELLOW, AND SPEAKER IS A TARGET BASED ON THIS FAKE AND ILLEGAL LEGISLATION. THE ONLY REASON THE ARE PUSHING FOR IT IS BECAUSE THEY PLAN ON DISCRETIONARY IMPLEMENTATION. IN OTHER WORDS, INHERENT TO THE PLAN IS A FOREKNOWLEDGE OF INJUSTICE AND UNFAIRNESS IN THE WAY IT WILL BE CARRIED OUT.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Jordan

  • Guest
Ceding Liberty to Terror: Senate Votes Against Due-Process Rights

Asked to deny presidential authority to indefinitely detain Americans without charges or a trial, they declined, citing the threat of al-Qaeda.

Is it lawful for the president to order any American held indefinitely as a terrorist, without formal charges, evidence presented in open court, a trial by jury, or a standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"? The U.S. Senate had a chance Wednesday to assert that no, a president does not possess that power -- that the United States Constitution guarantees due process.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) urged her colleagues to seize the opportunity. "We as a Congress are being asked, for the first time certainly since I have been in this body, to affirmatively authorize that an American citizen can be picked up and held indefinitely without being charged or tried. That is a very big deal, because in 1971 we passed a law that said you cannot do this. This was after the internment of Japanese-American citizens in World War II," she said. "What we are talking about here is the right of our government, as specifically authorized in a law by Congress, to say that a citizen of the United States can be arrested and essentially held without trial forever."

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) agreed.

"If we believe an American citizen is guilty or will be guilty of acts of terrorism, can we detain them indefinitely?" he said. "Can we ignore their constitutional rights and hold them indefinitely, without warning them of their right to remain silent, without advising them of their right to counsel, without giving them the basic protections of our Constitution? I don't believe that should be the standard."

In the end, however, Feinstein and Durbin lost the debate.

The U.S. Senate refused to affirm that American citizens arrested in the United States shouldn't be subject to indefinite military detention on the president's order. Senator Feinstein's amendment to that effect went down in defeat with 55 historic votes against it.

Here are the senators who lost, the ones who wanted to protect the rights of U.S. citizens to due process:


For the last two years, I've been railing against President Obama's civil-liberties abuses and the Democrats and liberals who are either complicit in them, or at best ignoring his Bush-like policies. What you see above is evidence that the Democratic Party in the Senate is better on civil liberties than the Republicans, only four of whom stood with due process and "innocent until proven guilty." Kudos to Sens. Kirk, Moran, Paul, Lee and Collins for breaking with their party.

That brings us to the senators who refused to affirm that American citizens should not be held indefinitely. They were led by Republican John McCain and Democrat Carl Levin, cosponsors of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. Sen. Lindsay Graham, a Republican, spoke against the Feinstein amendment on the Senate floor. "It has been the law of the United States for decades that an American citizen on our soil who collaborates with the enemy has committed an act of war and will be held under the law of war, not domestic criminal law," he said. "In World War II it was perfectly proper to hold an American citizen as an enemy combatant who helped the Nazis. But we believe, somehow, in 2011, that is no longer fair. That would be wrong. My God, what are we doing in 2011? Do you not think al-Qaeda is trying to recruit people here at home? Is the homeland the battlefield? You better believe it is the battlefield."

That quote is important, for Graham is saying that as long as terrorists are trying to recruit  on American soil, our homeland is a battlefield. That means a perpetual state of war. Here are the senators who refuse to affirm that American citizens retain the right to due process during this war that is supposedly being waged everywhere on earth and that has no foreseeable end in sight:


The Republicans listed ought to be condemned by "constitutional conservatives." Those are the Tea-Party-affiliated voters who, according to Yuval Levin of National Review, are "focused on restraining government" through "a system of checks to prevent sudden large mistakes while enabling gradual changes supported by a broad and longstanding consensus." These conservatives, Levin says, insist on "constitutional forms that compel self-restraint and enable self-correction" out of "the humble desire for forms that might prevent large mistakes." They are "focused on recovering the U.S. Constitution, and especially its limits on government power," because in the view of the Framers, "there is no omniscience; there is only imperfect humanity." We therefore need "checks on all of our various excesses, and a system that forces us to think through important decisions as best we can." If a bloc of voters with those attitudes in fact exists, they've now got a list of senators to challenge in the next primaries they face.

As yet, there is no hint that there will be such a rebellion.

Then there are the Democrats who broke with their party to oppose due process: Begich, Blumenthal, Inouye, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Levin, Manchin, Nelson, Pryor, Reed, Stabenow, and Whitehouse. If there is in fact a sizable progressive constituency that cares about civil liberties, will it challenge these senators?

As yet, there is no hint that there will be such a rebellion.

After Feinstein's amendment failed, the Senate quickly passed a face-saving measure on a 99 to 1 vote. It affirmed that nothing in the bill "shall be construed to affect existing authorities" about detention of U.S. citizens and resident aliens. In other words, the Senate is affirming the murky status quo, wherein presidents most certainly think they have the power to indefinitely detain, but have so far avoided a definitive, clarifying Supreme Court decision for fear they'd lose.

Many senators agree that the president is already so empowered.

In the floor debates, there was a lot of argument about what exactly Sandra Day O'Connor decided in her opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, one of the Supreme Court cases that guides detainee law. You can read the debate here -- it is a rich subject for a future item in this space.

Here I want to close by looking at an argument made by some of the senators who don't think it is lawful for the president to indefinitely detain Americans captured on U.S. soil. It requires us to step back from the amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, and the bill itself, which passed the Senate by a depressing 93 to 7 vote with only Wyden, Paul, Coburn, Harkin, Lee, Sanders, and Merkley dissenting. We also need to step back from the Obama and Bush administrations, and the War on Terror too, until we're just citizens reading the plain text of the U.S. Constitution, which members of all three federal branches swear to uphold.

Sen. Kirk had some grounding words to say about the Constitution:

    I took the time, as we all should from time to time, serving in this body, to re-read the Constitution of the United States yesterday. The Constitution says quite clearly: 'In the trial of all crimes -- no exception -- there shall be a jury, and the trial shall be held in the State where said crimes have been committed.' Clearly, the Founding Fathers were talking about a civilian court, of which the U.S. person is brought before in its jurisdiction.

    They talk about treason against the United States, including war in the United States. The Constitution says it "shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

    The following sentence is instructive: No person -- 'No person,' it says -- 'shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.' I would say that pretty clearly, 'open court' is likely to be civilian court.

    Further, the Constitution goes on, that when a person is charged with treason, a felony, or other crime, that person shall be 'removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime' -- once again contemplating civilian, state court and not the U.S. military. As everyone knows, we have amended the Constitution many times. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is instructive here. It says: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures' -- including, by the way, the seizure of the person -- 'shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, except upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

    Now, in section 1031(b)(2), I do not see the requirement for a civilian judge to issue a warrant. So it appears this legislation directly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution with regard to those rights which are inalienable, according to the Declaration of Independence, and should be inviolate as your birthright as an American citizen.

    Recall the Fifth Amendment, which says: 'No person' -- by the way, remember, 'no person'; there is not an exception here. 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment,' hear the words, 'of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War' -- meaning there is a separate jurisdiction for U.S. citizens who are in the uniformed service of the United States. But unless you are in the service of the United States, you are one of those 'no persons' who shall be answerable for a 'capital' or 'infamous crime,' except on 'indictment of a Grand Jury.'

    The Sixth Amendment says: 'In all criminal prosecutions' -- not some, not by exception, in all criminal prosecutions -- 'the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed' ... I go on to these because I regard all of these rights as inherent to U.S. citizens, granted to them by their birth in the United States.

Does your senator agree with all that? If not, isn't it about time that you elected someone who does?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/ceding-liberty-to-terror-senate-votes-against-due-process-rights/249388/

Offline unearth the tomb

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Face whatever may come with no sway!
Question: On the Amendment (Feinstein Amdt. No. 1456 )
Vote Number: 215 Vote Date: December 1, 2011, 06:36 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1456 to S. 1867 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012)
Statement of Purpose: Of a perfecting nature.
Vote Counts: YEAs 99 NAYs

To the statement of purpose that states: Of a perfecting nature. What is that to mean cause i don't get how that has any clear meaning twards the section of 1867 in the NDAA. So some one please explane.
"If you don't live for something you'll die for nothing" Live for this by Hatebreed.

Offline DireWolf

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Freedom, Liberty & death to the NWO
They are making it a no win scenario for anyone who does not bow on bended knee to them. Even the Nazi's of WWII didn't exhibit the flippant don't give a crap attitude these jokers are now foisting upon us.

Pray for peace, but don't be a sheep.
Freedom and Liberty, or slavery and death, your choice, choose wisely.

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/obama-regime-warns-all-americans-if-you-fight-us-you-will-die/

Obama Regime Warns All Americans: IF YOU FIGHT US YOU WILL DIE!

In one of the most stunning reversals of human rights in modern history the Federal Security Service (FSB) is reporting today that the Obama regime has issued a blunt warning to all American citizens that, in essence, states that any one of these once free people who dare to oppose their government they will be immediately killed and offered no chance to defend themselves before a Court and/or jury of their peers.

According to this report, this unprecedented attack was begun yesterday when the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) General Counsel Stephen Preston in responding to a question at an American Bar Association national security conference bluntly stated that “American citizens are not immune from being treated like an enemy if they take up arms against the United States.”

Obama regime lawyers further stated that only the Executive Branch, not the Courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy thus equating all American citizens as being potential “enemies of the state” thus effectively destroying the Constitution all of these government officials had sworn to defend.

I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline reddog801

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • MOLON LABE!
    • Exposing America
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/196943-paul-calls-senates-bluff-kills-terrorist-detainee-amendment-

Rand Paul calls for YAY and NAY votes, KILLS TERRORIST DETAINEE BILL!!

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday — simply by asking for a recorded vote — managed to kill an amendment that would have clarified that the military can indefinitely detain enemy combatants.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), called the amendment to the floor, explaining it ought to garner the support of all senators because it would simply “clarify” that enemy combatants acquitted of crimes in a court can still be held in military detention until they are no longer deemed a threat.

Looking to spare vulnerable Democrats from an awkward vote on the controversial issue of extra-judicial military detention, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), with the assent of his Republican counterpart John McCain (R-Ariz.), attempted to swiftly pass the amendment by unanimous consent.

“I think that this can be accepted on voice vote,” Levin said, when Sessions finished presenting the amendment. “I have great problems with it, but I think there is probably a majority here that will favor it.”  

But from across the chamber, Paul demanded a recorded vote on the amendment, which resulted in a resounding 41-59 defeat.

“I am going to ask for the yays and nays,” Paul said, surprising leaders.

Both McCain and Levin, who indicated moments before that they would agree to passage of the measure by unanimous consent, voted against it in that roll-call vote.

A Republican aid close to the process told The Hill on Friday that Democratic leaders including Levin had agreed to allow passage of the amendment, which they opposed, to dodge the roll-call vote, and that they had been assured by at least one high-powered Republican in the Senate Armed Services Committee that in the end it would be stripped from the final conference report.
Eric
We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it.  ~William Faulkner

 Twitter: FREEDOMDECODED

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293
Blast from the past:

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=2af60f3a-05dc-cdf6-7dc9-6501a995c17c

STATEMENT BY SENATOR McCAIN ON THE ENEMY BELLIGERENT INTERROGATION, DETENTION, AND PROSECUTION ACT OF 2010
March 4, 2010

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that sets forth a clear, comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of enemy belligerents who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States.  This legislation seeks to ensure that the mistakes made during the apprehension of the Christmas Day bomber, such as reading him a Miranda warning, will never happen again and put Americans’ security at risk.

Specifically, this bill would require unprivileged enemy belligerents suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a “high value detainee” interagency team established by the President.  This interagency team of experts in national security, terrorism, intelligence, interrogation and law enforcement will have the protection of U.S. civilians and civilian facilities as their paramount responsibility and experience in gaining actionable intelligence from high value detainees.

These experts must, to the extent it is possible to do so, make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of a detainee being taken into custody.  The experts then must submit their determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.  The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report it to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress.  In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the final call.

A key provision of this bill is that it would prohibit a suspected enemy belligerent from being provided with a Miranda warning and being told he has a right to a lawyer and a right to refuse to cooperate.  I believe that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that when we capture a terrorist who is suspected of carrying out or planning an attack intended to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians, our focus must be on gaining all the information possible to prevent that attack or any that may follow from occurring.  Under these circumstances, actionable intelligence must be our highest priority and criminal prosecution must be secondary.

Additionally, the legislation would authorize detention of enemy belligerents without criminal charges for the duration of the hostilities consistent with standards under the law of war which have been recognized by the Supreme Court.  Importantly, if a decision is made to hold a criminal trial after the necessary intelligence information is obtained, the bill mandates trial by military commission where we are best able to protect U.S. national security interests, including sensitive classified sources and methods, as well as the place and the people involved in the trial itself.

Mr. President, it should come as no comfort to any American that nearly eight and a half years after the attacks of 9/11 we still don’t have a clear mechanism, legal structure, and implementing policy for dealing with terrorists who we capture in the act of trying to bring about attacks on the United States and our national security interests at home and abroad.  What we saw with the Christmas Day bomber was a series of missteps and staggering failures in coordination among the most senior members of the Administration’s national security officials that have continued to be compounded by Administration apologists who still don’t seem to understand that repeating the same mistakes that were made in 2001 and 2002 is going to lead to the deaths of many more Americans.

The vast majority of Americans understand that what happened with the Christmas Day bomber was a near catastrophe that was only prevented by sheer luck and the courage of a few of the passengers and crew.  A wide majority of Americans also realize that allowing a terrorist to be interrogated for only 50 minutes before he is given a Miranda warning and told he can obtain a lawyer and stop cooperating is not sufficient.

Let me be clear about where I think the fault lies with our current policy.  I believe that the local FBI agents who were involved with investigating the Detroit attack are patriotic Americans who are experts in the field of law enforcement.  I hold the FBI in the highest regard and believe they set the standard for law enforcement professionalism not only in the U.S., but internationally.  But it is impossible for FBI field agents to know all the information that is available to the U.S. intelligence community worldwide during the first 50 minutes of interrogation of a suspected terrorist.   We must ensure that the broad range of expertise that is available within our government is brought to bear on such high-value detainees.  This bill mandates such coordination and places the proper focus on getting intelligence to stop an attack, rather than allowing law enforcement and preparing a case for a civilian criminal trial to drive our response.

Mr. President, deliberate mass attacks that intentionally target hundreds of innocent civilians are an act of war and should not be dealt with in the same manner as a robbery.  We must recognize the difference.  If we don’t, our response will be hopelessly inadequate.  We should not be providing suspected terrorists with Miranda warnings and defense lawyers.  Instead, the priority and focus must be on isolating and neutralizing the immediate threat and collecting intelligence to prevent another attack.

In closing, let me say that I hope that Congress and the Administration support this legislation as part of a comprehensive solution for detaining, interrogating and prosecuting suspected enemy belligerents.  However, there is a lot more work that must be done.   I am continuing to work with Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman, and others to address other crucial aspects of detainee policy.

As part of that effort, I believe we must establish a system for long-term detention of terrorists who are too dangerous to release, but who cannot be tried in a civilian court.  While the law of war authorizes detention until the end of hostilities--something the Supreme Court has recognized and which is reinforced in this bill--I believe that a review system for the long-term detention of detainees should be set out in law.   Additionally, both the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit Court have urged Congress to provide uniform guidelines to apply in the habeas corpus cases that have been brought by detainees.   Currently, the outcomes in the Guantanamo detainee habeas cases are inconsistent because of different interpretations of novel questions of law the judges face in applying habeas to wartime prisoners for the first time in our history.  I will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to improve this process to obtain better, more uniform results.  I do not believe that we will have addressed all the necessary detainee policy challenges until we do so, and my efforts will not stop until we have addressed all the detainee issues in a comprehensive fashion.

While other detainee policy challenges remain, I believe the handling of the Christmas Day bomber – including the law enforcement focus and the decision to read a Miranda warning after only 50 minutes of interrogation-- demand that Congress and the Administration first address the issue which is most crucial to our national security.  For that reason, we must have a clear policy, legal foundation, and mechanism for the detention, interrogation and trial of enemy belligerents who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States.   I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.
____________________________________________

http://www.prisonplanet.com/dissenters-to-be-detained-as-enemy-belligerents.html

Dissenters To Be Detained As “Enemy Belligerents”?
New bill allows U.S. citizens to be kidnapped and detained without trial indefinitely based on “suspected activity”



Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, March 8, 2010

Since the establishment media is convinced that tea party members, 9/11 truthers, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and basically anyone with a dissenting political opinion is a likely domestic terrorist, they should be celebrating the fact that a new bill would allow the government to detain such people as “enemy belligerents” indefinitely and without trial based on their “suspected activity”.

The “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,” introduced by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday with little fanfare, “sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning,” writes the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder.

The full bill can be read here (PDF).

The bill does not distinguish between U.S. citizens and non-citizens, and states that “suspected belligerents” who are “considered a “high-value detainee” shall not be provided with a Miranda warning.”

A person is considered a “high value detainee” if they fulfil one of the following criteria.

    (1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

Now that the Southern Poverty Law Center and the federal government, via the MIAC report and innumerable other leaked documents, now consider virtually anyone with a dissenting opinion against the state as “posing a threat,” millions of peaceful American citizens could be swept up by this frightening dragnet of tyranny.

However, according to the bill, an individual doesn’t even have to pose a threat to be snatched, detained and interrogated – they can merely be deemed to be of “potential intelligence value” or come under the vague and sweeping mandate of “such other matters as the President considers appropriate”.

This last designation hands Obama dictator powers to have any American citizen kidnapped, detained, and interrogated on a whim.

The only proviso that even hints at some form of check or balance is the measure that states, “The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of taking detainee into custody.”

“The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must submit its determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report the determination to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the determination,” states the bill.

The ACLU has expressed its vigorous opposition to the legislation, labeling it nothing less than a “direct attack on the Constitution”.

“Indefinite detention flies in the face of American values and violates this country’s commitment to the rule of law,” states Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

Of course, such positions from the ACLU as well as Amnesty International will only be used as grist for the neo-con propaganda mill about how the bill ought to be passed in order to avoid being “soft on terrorists,” a piece of spin still being swallowed whole by millions of conservatives who are blissfully unaware of the fact that the apparatus of the war on terror is now being aimed squarely at politically active American citizens.

“Torture, indefinite imprisonment, secret trials and limited staged hearings are the stuff of cheap dictatorships,” writes Ian McColgin. “They are the sort of idiocy we scorned in the Soviets, the Koreans and the Vietnamese. It is astonishing that we have senators and citizens even discussing this bill which is not a capitulation to terrorism – it’s the triumph of terrorism.”

Homeland Security is already implementing technology to be enforced at “security events” which purportedly reads “malintent” on behalf of an individual who passes through a checkpoint. Perhaps the video below explains just how “enemy belligerents” will be identified on American soil.

Offline Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
This is a perfect example how politicians use the "voice vote" in passing bills they don't want to be known as supporting.

Good for Paul for forcing a recorded vote. I can't see any circumstance where there should be a vote where people don't know how their reps. voted on a bill. It should all be recorded, but "voice vote" is something they allow, but I've yet to understand how it's suppose to be used. All I've noticed is abuse of it.

Quote
“I think that this can be accepted on voice vote,” Levin said, when Sessions finished presenting the amendment. “I have great problems with it, but I think there is probably a majority here that will favor it.” 

But from across the chamber, Paul demanded a recorded vote on the amendment, which resulted in a resounding 41-59 defeat.

“I am going to ask for the yays and nays,” Paul said, surprising leaders.

Both McCain and Levin, who indicated moments before that they would agree to passage of the measure by unanimous consent, voted against it in that roll-call vote.

A Republican aid close to the process told The Hill on Friday that Democratic leaders including Levin had agreed to allow passage of the amendment, which they opposed, to dodge the roll-call vote, and that they had been assured by at least one high-powered Republican in the Senate Armed Services Committee that in the end it would be stripped from the final conference report.
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)

Jordan

  • Guest
NDAA Passed in House and Senate Marks the Beginning of Indefinite Detainment for US Citizens



Reminiscent of the Executive Order 9066 signed by President Roosevelt in the 1940′s, S. 1867 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 or NDAA) has become the malevolent, powerhouse predecessor to the similarly controversial S. 1253 bill which was introduced back on June 22nd. Since then, the NDAA was revised and resubmitted for review on November 15th, and seventeen days later it was passed in the Senate 93-7 on December 1st – the House having already passed its version of the bill, H.R. 1540, 322-96-13 on May 26th.

Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office wrote

    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 trail civilians anywhere in the world. 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.

According to the ACLU, the NDAA in its current form

(Relevant material begins on page 359)

    (1) Explicitly authorizes the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

    (2) Mandates military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

    (3) Transfers to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI, and Amnesty International USA have likewise  joined the ACLU in voicing their oppositions to sections 1301 and 1302 of S. 1867.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the principle authors of the provisions in S. 1867, wrote the affront to the US Constitution in a closed-door committee meeting without any hearing before it was passed in the Senate.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on the floor of the Senate questioned McCain on whether or not “under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?”

Sen. McCain responded, “I think as long as that individual — no matter who they are — if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat. And I think that’s a majority of American public opinion.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of the bill, explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill and its provisions are justified because ”America is part of the battlefield.”

There have been numerous attempts to amend the purposed bill(s)

On November 29th, the Senate voted 38-60 rejecting an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) sec. 1031 and sec. 1032 which would have repealed the harmful, counterproductive provisions. The amendment was proposed by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), which would have replaced those provisions with a requirement for an orderly congressional review of detention power. Despite his purposed amendment failing, Udall voted for the bill saying that

    Tonight, I cast my vote with extremely serious reservations, given my grave concerns about the provisions in this bill regarding military detention. Troubling questions have been raised by the Pentagon and the directors of national intelligence, the FBI and the CIA about how this new policy will impact our ability to track down, capture and bring terrorists to justice. I continue to oppose these provisions.

    After weighing all of the possible options, I decided to vote yes on the overall bill. As a member of the conference committee, I will continue to fight for a consensus that will protect our national security and the constitutional principles on which our nation was founded. The rest of this bill is vitally important to our military. I couldn’t in good conscience vote against legislation that means so much to Colorado and our men and women in uniform fighting in two wars.

Before H.R. 1540 (the House equivalent of S. 1867) was passed, along with the provisions sanctioning unending, worldwide war, as well as unprecedented power granted to President Obama — including future presidents — to engage persons and states alike, at any time or for any reason without the need for congressional approval or presenting sufficient evidence of a threat to our national security, an attempt was made to strike aforementioned provisions.

The amendment was introduced by a collection of bipartisan Representatives: Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

The House rejected the amendment 234-187.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), one of the house Republicans to oppose the measure when it was passed in May, said “It is destructive of our Constitution” and called it “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.”

Although the bill says “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States,” Rep. Amash said the language is “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

“Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” he wrote.

“The President should not have the authority to determine whether the Constitution applies to you, no matter what the allegations,” Amash said. “Please urge your Senators to oppose these outrageous provisions.”

The discrepancies between the House and Senate versions now need to be resolved at next weeks conference committee before it reaches President Obama’s desk and subject to the veto threat he issued earlier. However, due the overwhelming majority in favor of the bill in its current form which simultaneously authorizes the US military to indefinitely detain anyone, anywhere, it also authorizes $632 billion in funds for sustaining the “War on Terror” along with military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is for this reason that many of our Senators and Representatives have given the bill their votes; one would have to be naive to assume this was not the intent of Sen. McCain and Sen. Levin.

Some even doubt that President Obama will veto the bill even if it still contains the indefinite detention provisions.

Daphne Eviatar, an associate for the Human Rights First group, told Democracy Now that

    Obama has said he will. Whether he will is a difficult question because, politically, it’s difficult to veto a defense spending bill that is 680 pages long and includes authorization to spend on a whole range of military programs.

The official purpose of S. 1867 was to, among other things, “prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.” To say the least, this is the biggest understatement in US history. Essentially, the House and Senate have codified indefinite detainment, without charges or due process of law, and without any recourse or oversight, against citizens of any country – including US citizens — under the facade of “national security” and wrapped in a big ‘ol American flag.

Do the justifications not pang with familiarity?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rghhz_t5POo

http://viewunnoticed.com/politics/ndaa-passed-in-house-and-senate-marks-the-beginning-of-indefinite-detainment-for-us-citizens/

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
NDAA Bill is just another Unconstitutional method of stripping us of our rights.

Now let’s see what the Elite are doing.

1. They are equipping police departments with military hardware.

2. Staffing Fema camps.

3. NDAA Bill ( Detain Americans on a whim ).

Just these three reasons alone are clues that raise suspicion that the US Government is preparing for a collapse or Revolution /civil unrest as they call it.

Why give police military hardware you ask?

The elite will use the newly equipped police as frontline stooges to see how well we the people are armed and use the intel to plot their strategy .

Get ready Patriots as the time is near when we will have to water the Tree of Liberty as it is parched and dying.

I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
The government's power to arrest citizens
without due process is a new low

The Terrorists Have Won

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/the-governments-power-to-arrest-citizens-without-due-process-is-a-new-low/Content?oid=3655624

by Jack Hunter

Since 9/11, Sen. Lindsey Graham has said repeatedly that we must fight the terrorists "over there" so we don't have to fight them "over here." But last week, Graham threw this all out the window. We are now at war everywhere. Forever.

As you may know, many believe that Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act gives the federal government new powers to arrest American citizens without charge. Graham is one of them. According to him, Section 1031 gives the federal government the authority to detain American citizens, "and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."

Excuse me. The entire world is now a battlefield? Including the homeland?

Recently, there have been serious constitutional questions raised concerning whether our federal government should be able to arrest or assassinate American citizens overseas without charge or trial. This new and largely unchartered legal territory has been troublesome. But arresting or assassinating American citizens here in the United States without trial? Rounding up and holding American citizens indefinitely without charge? What country is this?

This is a new and unprecedented government power that should scare the living hell out of every last American. The basic constitutional principle of protecting individual liberties through due process is not some negotiable piece of historical trivia, as Graham may think. It is the bedrock of Western law dating all the way back to the Magna Carta. Accepting this legislation blindly — as the majority of both parties seem entirely comfortable with — is to surrender the most basic of American liberties. Said Sen. Rand Paul, who fought hard and mostly alone to strip the National Defense Authorization Act of this terrifying provision: "Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won."

And the terrorists have won. If a primary purpose of terrorism is to induce fear and Americans are willing to give up their most precious freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism, how is this anything less than a monumental victory for our enemies?

Most who support this new power for the federal government — especially Graham — agree that what we call the "war on terror" is a war that will last forever. In this light, this new legislation poses a particular danger, or as Sen. Paul explains: "During war, there has always been a struggle to preserve constitutional liberties. During the Civil War, the right of habeas corpus was suspended ... Fortunately, those actions were reversed after the war."

Paul then notes: "The discussion now to suspend certain rights to due process is especially worrisome, given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned. So we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored."

A state of permanent war inevitably means permanent loss of liberties. When "protecting our freedoms" is defined by gradually giving them up one by one, Americans are no longer protected or free. This was understood well by our Founding Fathers and a primary reason they wrote the Constitution their descendants are now so eager to discard. Benjamin Franklin believed that when you give up liberty for security you get neither. Meanwhile, James Madison wrote: "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other ... In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people."

The great fear in allowing government officials to forego due process is not that it might hurt actual terrorists — for the record, I'm in favor of hurting actual terrorists, badly — but that it might hurt you, me, or any other innocent American in the future. To support giving government this sort of power, you must assume two things: one, government never makes mistakes, and two, government never abuses its power. I know few who believe either.

Let us gauge our decline in our rhetoric. In 1795, James Madison said, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare," while last week Lindsey Graham boasted, "When they say 'I want to talk to a lawyer,' we tell them 'Shut up! You don't get a lawyer!"

This isn't protecting America. It's destroying it.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline oyashango

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,524
  • 43 Trillion and counting
Sen. Lindsey Graham on the NDAA, Indefinite Detention of American Citizens

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293
Look at this speech from 2004:

http://merln.ndu.edu/archivepdf/terrorism/dod/36878.pdf

The National Guard: Full Spectrum Force in the Global War on Terror

Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau
Foreign Press Center Briefing
Washington, DC October 8, 2004


10:15 A.M. EDT
Real Audio of Briefing

COLONEL MACHAMER: Good morning, and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. As you are aware, the National Guard, our National Guard, is now playing a very significant role in the global war on terror, both abroad and here at home, and we’re pleased to have with us this morning Lieutenant General Steven Blum, who is the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to talk about that. General Blum will give a brief presentation and be glad to take your questions. Sir.

LTGEN BLUM: Thank you. Thank you very much. As was announced, we’re going to talk about the National Guard today and its role, unprecedented role, in the global war on terrorism. The Guard is the longest serving military service in the United States. It predates the nation, it has been serving for over 367 years, and it has always been in the homeland defense business. And today, it is being used in a new and different way, as an operational force, as a full spectrum force, both supporting the Army and the Air Force of the United States overseas and defending the homeland back here at home, and doing both simultaneously, and, by the way, responding to all of the disasters that Mother Nature can bring our way, such as the current hurricane season. Next slide.

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/36878.htm (1 of 8 ) [10/16/2008 11:15:08 AM]

The National Guard: Full Spectrum Force in the Global War on Terror

This is where we are. As you can see, we are engaged all over the globe. The National Guard of the United States, both Army and Air support, every combatant commander around the globe, both here at home, we support the Northern Command and NORAD, STRATCOM, and PACOM, Pacific Command for Hawaii, Alaska, Guam and Marianas. All of the areas shown in red show the support that we have in significant numbers in Europe, Asia, South America and in Central/Southwest Asia, as well as other regions of the world. Next.

This is the menu of operations where they are performed by the National Guard today. From the left-side of the chart, which is largely military support to civilian agencies and law enforcement; and as you move to the right on the chart, it gets increasingly complex and dangerous and, ultimately, close ground combat in a joint expeditionary and campaign quality environment overseas, as you see towards the right-hand side of the chart.

All of these things are being done by over 100,000 National Guardsmen this morning, as we speak, and those tasks that are shown in the gray box in the center can be done under the control of the governors here at home or can be done under the control of the Department of Defense in the name of the President as a federal mission here at home.

The right-hand side of the chart outside of the gray box must be done in a federal role because we are overseas and deployed as elements of the Army and the Air Force.

But you can see the National Guard is participating in every single aspect of our national security strategy, one being defense of the homeland is number one, that is always job one for the National Guard, but it doesn’t mean we have to defend the homeland here at home if we may be participating in what I consider to be, to use a sports analogy, the unscheduled—I mean a scheduled away game, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Kosovo, in Bosnia, the Horn of Africa.

So the unscheduled home game, should it occur back here at home, such as what we experienced on the 11th of September 2001, where the National Guard was the first military responders and in the New York incident were the only needed military responders for that incident. There was no federal response there from federal troops. It was—except for the United States Coast Guard. Next slide.

We have two readiness mandates. The National Guard has always had to take an oath to support and defend two constitutions, one of the United States, which takes priority over any other in our country; and then, at the same time, they swear allegiance to follow the orders of the governor of a state and the constitution of the state when it does not conflict or contradict the allegiance that is sworn to the national Constitution.

So the governors maintain command-and-control and utilization of the National Guard at all times, unless the President requires the National Guard or orders the National Guard into federal service, and when that occurs there’s never a contest, it’s automatic that the priority goes to the national mission or to the federal mission.

The Secretary of Defense has asked us to improve access of our National Guard for the Department of
Defense and to be a more meaningful and useful tool in the global war on terror, and we have done that. We are transforming the National Guard from a strategic reserve to be called only in time of World War III to be an operational force that can be called at any time, any place, for any reason, both here at home or abroad.

And that’s presented us some challenges because we still have a mandate to the governors to provide them the right force capabilities and the same type of forces and the capabilities and the right mix and the right size in the right place so that they can handle Hurricane Ivan or they can handle al-Qaida should they visit a neighborhood in the United States, so that we can either detect, defeat, prevent or respond to a terrorist event or some act of tragedy induced on the American people by weather patterns or earthquakes or hurricanes, tornados, and even volcanoes lately. Next slide.

In order to do that, we have established a joint force headquarters in every state and territory so that we can leverage the capabilities of both the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard and find a way to pull in, in a very collaborate and synchronized way, the capabilities of the Navy and the Coast Guard for homeland defense and response to weapons of mass destruction events here at home. The joint force headquarters exist in every state and territory. We have 54 of these. They are on a 24/7 round-the-clock watch and these capabilities are available 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and we have developed some new capabilities that I’ll tell you about in a few minutes. Next slide.

The joint force headquarters that just described essentially provide command-and-control, communications, computers, intelligence fusion, analysis, information sharing, surveillance, reconnaissance of their local areas—highly, highly important and powerful tools in the deterrent phase of counterterrorism or the prevention phase—and they provide us a defeat mechanism, because if we can detect it, we can defeat it.

Should we fail to detect it or defeat it, we will be able to respond and mitigate the consequences of such event by leveraging all the capabilities shown in this list. These units can come out of the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard and some come in combination as a join team so that we have the right capabilities in the right place in the right numbers so that the governors can discharge their duties and responsibilities as the senior elected official of the state.

You can see that 75 percent of the National Guard is always, always immediately available to the governors 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, should they need them.

The part that’s missing out of this pie chart are the 119,000 citizen soldiers and airmen that are deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, the Horn of Africa and all of those other places that were shown on the global map where we’re not at home but we are abroad doing our job as part of the United States Air Force or part of the United States Army. Next slide.

Each one of these joint force headquarters is a tactical joint task force capable headquarters that is able to manage the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard active duty reservists or National Guard, or all in combination, if necessary, to include interagency and intergovernmental responders to whatever the incident may be in each one of these states or territories.

The National Guard Bureau itself makes sure that we have a consistent, nationwide command-and-control network that synchronizes the response from across the entire nation. In every community and every neighborhood we have an ability that’s built in, but we also have a reinforcing ability to pull units and capabilities and troops from any neighboring state or states anywhere in the United States, if necessary, to come into the affected area to mitigate the problem or to do the either defeat or prevent mechanism.

The strategic headquarters for all of this in the continental United States is United States Northern Command; and for Alaska and Hawaii it’s Pacific Command; and for certain specific missions, it’s STRATCOM, Strategic Command. This organization, this command-and-control structure, can access the entire United States Army that’s in CONUS [Continental United States], the entire United States Navy, entire United States Marine Corps or Air Force that is left in CONUS, and they can come in because these joint force headquarters have a reception staging and onward integration function already built into them that enable that to happen. In other words, they allow all these forces to seamlessly flow into the state and respond if the governors need them. Very, very powerful model, which means that there’s no part of our country that is not protected and would not have the capability to respond if it were attacked or if it suffered a tragedy. Next slide.

In addition to all of that, the National Guard is taking on some specific initiatives to make us more relevant, more ready, more accessible and more essential to the defense of our homeland. I’ve spent some time talking about the joint force headquarters and the goodness it brings. In addition, we have all over the nation developed chemical-biological response teams, force packages of Army and Air National Guard units that have special equipment and special training so that they can do mass decontamination, the treatment of mass casualties, technical extraction of victims from rubble buildings.

In addition to that, each and every state and territory, all 54, have an immediate quick reaction force and a rapid response force which can deliver a battalion size, trained and ready organization in less than 24 hours. Most can deliver a company size in less than four hours anywhere in their state or territory.

In addition to that, we have the 32 civil support teams that are already trained, equipped and certified and distributed in 32 states, shown in green on this chart. The states that are shown in yellow are the 12 that are being developed, trained and readied now. They will be readied by the end of next year. And the ones in red will be the ones that follow on in 18 months after that.

So, ultimately, in a very short order, every state and territory will have a civil support team.  Now, what can that civil support team do? It can identify chemical, biological, radiological and high conventional explosive devices. It can detect them. It can advise what to do about it to the civilian local first responders—the police, the fire department and emergency services people—and it can offer an immediate communications bridge so that the local first responders can plug in to the Department of Defense communications system immediately so that we can start flowing all of those capabilities that I described a little bit earlier into each of those regions that are needed. Next slide.

In addition to that, we have a joint continental United States—that means everything shown in that green map up there—it’s not all continental, some of it is out in the Pacific Ocean and in the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean. And all the states and territories of the United States are connected by a secure IT system, information technology system, but it’s secure that it cannot—you don’t have to speak in code, you can talk in real text in real time, but it is encoded, encrypted, where someone can’t crack into it and know what’s being said.

And at the same time, we can do that through non-secure means and we also have the ability to do that in a secure fashion or a classified fashion even through videoteleconferencing. So not only can you get the words and the conversation and information you need in a real-time method, but you can also see images of what’s going on, pictures of what’s actually going, so that they better understand the situation.

We share this shared awareness with every one of those state headquarters so that everybody has knowledge of what’s going on real-time, and we also share it with Northern Command, Pacific Command, Strategic Command or any other DOD function that would have a need to know or a desire to know what’s going on for that event.

In addition, we have access to the Department of Homeland Security’s information network system and we have integrated that into this so that we not only have Department of Defense information and intelligence going in there, but we also have civilian law enforcement and civilian responder information nationwide going and being shared in those headquarters.

We have a 24/7 365-day operation centers so that there is no time that you could ever not call one of these states joint force headquarters and not have a cell that is able to respond. So we are on a completely different footing than we were on prior to 9/11/2001 -- a tremendous capability that has been developed in the last three years that most people in our own nation don’t even know about.

Having said all that, I think what we have delivered is what we promised, a ready force, a reliable force, absolutely an essential force and an accessible force, accessible both to the governors here at home and to the President and the Secretary of Defense and the services when they need them abroad.

I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: Yes. What’s your response to—I won’t mention any names here, but to the claim that has been made many times over during this campaign that the Guard nowadays is, I mean, it’s a backdoor draft?

LTGEN BLUM: There is no way that the word “draft” can be associated with the National Guard. The National Guard has never had any of its members brought into its ranks by a draft in 367 years and we never plan to use a draft to fill our ranks. The National Guard has always been a volunteer force, it will always remain a volunteer force, and to suggest that these citizen soldiers and airmen patriots that have willingly pledged to interrupt their lives, their education and distance themselves from their families to protect their nation and their communities, I think is a disservice to the people in uniform to suggest anything otherwise.

QUESTION: Yes, can I ask about the tasks that you can actually perform with the citizen soldiers.  In the highly technical military of today, are they able to perform, let’s say, in the National Guard, the Air National Guard, identical tasks to the professional airmen or the Air Force? They fly similar airplanes, they do everything that these professional soldiers do?

LTGEN BLUM: If you’re asking me, are they just as good as their active duty counterparts, no, they’re clearly not; they’re better, by the admission of the United States Air Force. That’s not my claim. That’s the evaluation that General Jumper* or General Mosely* would give you. The National Guard pilots are actually more experienced pilots. They are unmatched by any air force in the world, including the United States Air Force. They are clearly the best aircraft maintainers on the planet and they are some of the most experienced pilots on the planet.

So I wasn’t being facetious when I said what I just said. That is the rating that if you talk to any knowledgeable Air Force senior officer, they would tell you the same thing I just did.

COL. MACHAMER: General, I have a question. I understand that the National Guard has developed relationships with other countries. Could you discuss that a little bit?

LTGEN BLUM: Well, the National Guard has something called a State Partnership Program, and right now we have 48 nation-states around the world that have formal partnerships with states here at home, National Guard units and states here at home, the most recent of which is Colorado and the country of Jordan. Right before that, we established one with Bosnia and Herzegovina and the state of Maryland.

And we’ve had tremendous success with this program. It’s been in existence since the early 1990s.  It was originally established to act as a catalyst and assistance for partner states or satellite states of the former Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union disintegrated and we matched up Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, those states were matched up early on so that we would give them a mil-to-mil relationship with the National Guard here in the United States. It would be a little simpler to deal with than trying to deal with the large United States as a country in its entirety, and I think it has proved a success in that all of those early state partnership programs have now matured to the point where they move from a state partnership to the Partnership for Peace program and now all of those countries that I just named are NATO—are in the NATO alliance and many are serving shoulder-to- shoulder with National Guard soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia right now, today, as we speak.

So we took the success of that early program, and each combatant commander saw the goodness in it and it has now expanded to 48 and we expect to add another ten states to that in the next 18 months. In fact, the program has grown to be so successful and so far-reaching that we have hired our first political advisor, or POLAD, for the negotiations Bureau, Dr. John Finney. He is an experienced Foreign Service officer with experience as a political advisor, or a POLAD, for combatant commanders and on-the-ground commanders in Southwest Asia and in Europe, and has great experience here in Washington. The secondary effect of that is that there will be a bridge between the Department of Defense and the Department of State all around the world, but a much better bridging than has previously existed, and the National Guard will provide that bridge. Just as the National Guard will provide the bridge between the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security in the states, we act as an auxiliary to the bridge between the Department of State and the Department of Defense abroad with the State Partnership Programs.

QUESTION: What about recruitment, now that the Guard’s mission has been widened, worldwide and 24/7 in this country? Are there still volunteers?

LTGEN BLUM: Are they still volunteers?

QUESTION: Volunteers to join the Guard.

LTGEN BLUM: Oh, absolutely. I am very pleasantly surprised that as we have used the National Guard in an unprecedented manner, in greater numbers than ever before, at least in the last 30 and a half years, that our retention rate, or our reenlistment rate or our experienced soldiers who deploy are staying with us at higher rates today than at any other time that we’ve measured this in the last 13 years. That’s a very, very reassuring indicator that the Guard is healthy and alive and will remain a viable force, even though we’re using it the way we’re using it, and using it in the numbers that we’re using it.

In addition to that, the other factor that I’m watching very carefully is are we going to be able to recruit new members into the Army and Air National Guard, and so far our experience says yes, we will, that the young men and women of our country are still willing to stand up and to be counted, and when their nation needs them they are ready to serve.

And I might add this. I have been in uniform for 37 years and I have never seen the quality of the soldiers and the airmen that we have in our ranks today any better than it is right now. There has been no degradation or sliding back in the quality of the force. It actually is the best quality force, the most professional force, the most committed force, the most versatile force, that I have seen in my 37 years in uniform.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) professional forces or only the Guard?

LTGEN BLUM: Well, you asked me about the Guard. It applies to the Guard. But I would say that you could also say the same about the United States Army, Marine Corps, navy, Coast Guard and Air Force because we get our members from the same demographic group as they do and we enlist to the same standards. There’s not a different standard. To get into the National Guard or to the Air Force, the standard is the same. To get into the Army, to enlist in the Army or the Army National Guard, the enlistment standards are exactly the same. There is no relaxation of standards. That’s why it makes us able to be interchangeable parts on the battlefield either here at home fighting a hurricane or a tornado or terrorists or overseas doing the missions that we’re asked to perform there.

Thank you, sir.

COL. MACHAMER: Thank you, General.

LTGEN BLUM: Thank you. Thank you very much for having the opportunity to share this information with you. Thank you.

Released on October 8, 2004

Offline Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
Quote
You can see that 75 percent of the National Guard is always, always immediately available to the governors 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, should they need them.

That is a lie. Just ask any border governor. The "National Guard" are no longer under the commmand of the governors. They are under command of the standing army under the Department of Defense, which is federal. They like to use the term "federalized".

The state governors get what the Department of Defense says what they get, of their own guard units. Not that the guard was ever the militia in the first place.

Quote
The National Guard: Full Spectrum Force in the Global War on Terror

This is where we are. As you can see, we are engaged all over the globe. The National Guard of the United States, both Army and Air support, every combatant commander around the globe, both here at home, we support the Northern Command and NORAD, STRATCOM, and PACOM, Pacific Command for Hawaii, Alaska, Guam and Marianas. All of the areas shown in red show the support that we have in significant numbers in Europe, Asia, South America and in Central/Southwest Asia, as well as other regions of the world.
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Submitted by visible51 on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 22:07
in Activism



16 votes

URGENT: SB 1867 is now HR 1540 - Vote expected on Tuesday.
 
Lets Melt the Congressional Switchboard with Phone Calls on Monday & Tuesday - We can win this !
 
SB 1867 did pass with language in Section 1031: that America Citizens be subjected to the rules of war; That anyone could be detained indefinitely without trial for committing an act of belligerence Sec 1032 prevents military custody of Citizens, but does not exclude American Citizens from being rounded up, and held in private custody under the rules of war.


http://www.dailypaul.com/192209/urgent-lets-melt-the-congressional-switchboard-on-monday-tuesday

TEXT OF HR 1540 PP (Public Print - PP)(current as of 12/9/2011)
 
Subtitle D—Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED
 PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR
 USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority
 of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force
 pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force
 (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed
 Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as
 defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law
 of war.
 
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this
 section is any person as follows:
 
(1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
 September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for
 those attacks.
 
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially
 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
 States or its coalition partners, including any person
 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
 
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposi-
tion of a person under the law of war as described in sub-
section (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial
 until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Au-
thorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-
sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the per-
son’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or
 any other foreign entity.
 
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-
 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
 
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall 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.

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress re-
 garding the application of the authority described in this
 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of sub-
 section (b)(2).
 
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF
 WAR.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para-
graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who
 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
 Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
 under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose deten-
tion is authorized under section 1031 who is deter-
mined—

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda
 or an associated force that acts in coordination
 with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda;
 and
 (B) to have participated in the course of
 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted
 attack against the United States or its coalition
 partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For pur-
poses of this subsection, the disposition of a person
 under the law of war has the meaning given in sec-
tion 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise de-
scribed in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made
 unless consistent with the requirements of section
 1033.
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
they did it they want a War the by damn let's give them one.
 >:(

House and Senate agree on sweeping defense bill
By DONNA CASSATA | AP – 3 hrs agoEmailShare

»WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress is pressing ahead with a massive $662 billion defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism suspects linked to al-Qaida, including those captured within the U.S., with lawmakers hoping their last-minute revisions will mollify President Barack Obama and eliminate a veto threat.

Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees announced late Monday that they had reached agreement on the policy-setting legislation that had gotten caught up in an escalating fight on whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals in the civilian justice system.

Responding to personal appeals from Obama and his national security team, the lawmakers added language on national security waivers and other changes that they hoped would ensure administration support for the overall bill.

"I assured the president that we were working on additional assurances, that the concerns were not accurate," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., who spoke to Obama last week, told reporters at a news conference. "That we'd do everything we could to make sure they were allayed, and met."

White House officials said Tuesday they were reviewing the bill. It was unclear whether they would hold firm on the veto threat.

Overall, the bill would authorize $662 billion for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1. Reflecting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than Obama requested and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon for fiscal 2011.

The legislation would impose tough new sanctions on Iran, targeting foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank in Tehran. Levin said the negotiators made some changes to address concerns of the Treasury Department, but he said the legislation is "96 percent" of what the Senate had unanimously backed.

One of the measure's chief sponsors welcomed the results. "Moving forward, the Congress will need to be more vigilant than ever before in holding the administration's feet to the fire to collapse the Central Bank of Iran and force international financial institutions to choose between doing business in the U.S. and doing business in Iran," said Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.

Reflecting growing public weariness with more than a decade of war in Afghanistan, the bill requires the president to develop options to accelerate the ability of the Afghanistan National Security Forces to take responsibility for the country's protection, with benchmarks on progress.

The lawmakers said they hoped the House and Senate could vote on the final bill by Thursday and send it to the president.

The issue of how to handle captured terrorist suspects has divided Obama's senior national security officials and Congress, as well as Democrats and Republicans.

The administration insists that military, law enforcement and intelligence officials need flexibility in prosecuting the war on terror. Obama points to his administration's successes in eliminating Osama bin Laden and radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, and that Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects.

The bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States, with an exemption for U.S. citizens.

Responding to appeals from Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller, lawmakers added a provision that says nothing in the bill will affect "existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency" with regard to a captured suspect, "regardless of whether such ... person is held in military custody."

The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security. Originally that authority rested with the defense secretary.

House and Senate negotiators dropped several of the provisions in the House bill that also had drawn a veto threat, including the requirement of military tribunals for all cases.

"We took significant steps to address the administration's concerns," Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House panel, told reporters.

The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The lawmakers made no changes to that language.

Civil rights groups still pressed for a presidential veto.

"The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain — the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself. The bill strikes at the very heart of American values," Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "Based on suspicion alone, no place and no person are off-limits to military detention without charge or trial."

The bill would go after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank by barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

The petroleum penalties would only apply if the president, in six months, determines there is a sufficient alternative supply and if the country with jurisdiction over the financial institution has not significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil. It also allows the president to waive the penalties based on national security.
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The lawmakers made no changes to that language.
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45647722/ns/politics/t/house-senate-negotiators-agree-defense-bill/

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress is pressing ahead with a massive $662 billion defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism suspects linked to al-Qaida, including those captured within the U.S., with lawmakers hoping their last-minute revisions will mollify President Barack Obama and eliminate a veto threat.

Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees announced late Monday that they had reached agreement on the policy-setting legislation that had gotten caught up in an escalating fight on whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals in the civilian justice system.

The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The lawmakers made no changes to that language.
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Just claim you are an illegal alien and they'll leave you alone !!!!!  :D

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Just claim you are an illegal alien and they'll leave you alone !!!!!  :D

Sorry but i see no humor in this.  time to water the Tree of liberty!!
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Pleasured

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
Everything is really upside down. THEY are Al-CIA-duh!

Offline Pleasured

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108

  Every day is more insane than the previous day.









A Quickening

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
The lawmakers said they hoped the House and Senate could vote on the final bill by Thursday and send it to the president ?
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
If you know for a fact that lawmakers are corrupt and commit treasonous acts then why do we let it go on? Its a honest question.

Treason,Blackmail, Bribery, corruption,Murder all are rampant in Washington D.C. and yet we do nothing about it. So we are all partially to blame
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
wow read 114 times and nobody wants to reply, ya to chicken to express your anger!
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline reddog801

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • MOLON LABE!
    • Exposing America
Sorry but i see no humor in this.  time to water the Tree of liberty!!

I could not agree more. Time to turn the American Flag upside down, put the don't tread on me flag underneath. I think a lot of people are really up in arms about his bill and about what this government is really doing to us. From time to time we do need to water the tree of liberty and right now is the time. It's time to put some more green back on it.
Eric
We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it.  ~William Faulkner

 Twitter: FREEDOMDECODED

Offline decemberfellow

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,069
wow read 114 times and nobody wants to reply, ya to chicken to express your anger!

I will defend my God my family my house my property till death,  strictly self defense.

However I agree with an old JT statement,  some coward will probably take me out with a 50 from a mile away.  

As far as expressing anger  to tptb only lead ya to camp fema. No Thanks
Rev21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


Who am I
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Fk6dt_uHo

Offline CJ Wrigley

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
If you know for a fact that lawmakers are corrupt and commit treasonous acts then why do we let it go on? Its a honest question.

Treason,Blackmail, Bribery, corruption,Murder all are rampant in Washington D.C. and yet we do nothing about it. So we are all partially to blame

Thats what I always say. It's quite sad really but just goes to show the levels of indoctrination and hell I'll say it mind control. I for one do not stand quietly while this BS goes on, the best thing we can do is prepare for the worst and tell EVERYONE about what is to come whether they think your crazy or not. If people refuse to believe what is going on in this nation (or world for that matter) then that is fine because when shit finally does hit the fan they will realize those "nutjobs" where telling them is true and they will know exactly what is going on. Even if people don't want to listen by shouting the facts at them anyway you plant a seed in the back of their head soon the Liberty Tree will blossom and the NWO and all these traitors in Congress and Senate as well as whatever agencies the court and the executive branch will realize that they have made a BIG mistake. The people may do nothing about it but they wake up it will be massive and there WILL be outrage....All we who are already awake can do is try to wake people up, prepare for it, and wait. We will not go quietly and I laugh at anyone who thinks we will.

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Sorry but i see no humor in this.  time to water the Tree of liberty!!

Most of the politically alert in America know all about the NDAA and its un-Constitutionality.

This legislation will never make it out of Washington DC.

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Most of the politically alert in America know all about the NDAA and its un-Constitutionality.

This legislation will never make it out of Washington DC.

if it is so unconstitutional then it should have died long ago and never made it through the first round .
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
I will defend my God my family my house my property till death,  strictly self defense.

However I agree with an old JT statement,  some coward will probably take me out with a 50 from a mile away.  

As far as expressing anger  to tptb only lead ya to camp fema. No Thanks

you post on a conspiracy forum that is anti big government, do you actually think the Elite are saving you a place at their table? Your name is already on the FEMA camp list like the rest of us , the limo just has not picked you up yet. LOL
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE