budlover13
King Tut
So subsection (b), which defines those targeted, doesn't say alleged. So then if someone does commit these crimes then they get a trial right?
This Is Scary!
- Thread starter VILEPLUME
- Start date
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
If they are committing these acts within the US, they are entitled to all rights and privileges afforded by the US Constitution.
budlover13
King Tut
So if i dissent after i move out of country am i targeted? No longer a US citizen if i choose so OR could do dual citizenship.
Either way, if one were to dissent and has not committed any physical acts but decides that his home is his castle and decides to resist a warrantless and un-Constitutional search, they will die in a hail of lead most likely.
VILEPLUME
Well-Known Member
Nice man, that is quote worthy!
U.S. Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano said Friday that the risk of “lone wolf” attackers, with no ties to known extremist networks or grand conspiracies, is on the rise as the global terrorist threat has shifted.
…
“There’s been a lot of evolution over the past three years,” she said. “The thing that’s most noticeable to me is the growth of the lone wolf,” the single attacker who lives in the United States or elsewhere who is not part of a larger global conspiracy or network, she said.
She named no examples, but it’s a phenomenon that is increasingly the focus of international anti-terror operations.
US Citizens can still be indefinitely detained under military rule, just not civilian.
…
“There’s been a lot of evolution over the past three years,” she said. “The thing that’s most noticeable to me is the growth of the lone wolf,” the single attacker who lives in the United States or elsewhere who is not part of a larger global conspiracy or network, she said.
She named no examples, but it’s a phenomenon that is increasingly the focus of international anti-terror operations.
US Citizens can still be indefinitely detained under military rule, just not civilian.
budlover13
King Tut
Having severe issues getting on the site tonight.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
The only reason they're now focusing on the lone wolf is because then any American citizen can be shot first. Later lone wolf evidence can be "found" shocking neighbors, family and friends. I don't like Moore, but this is seriously funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNf-3VHRhE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNf-3VHRhE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
This has nothing to do with "dissent," you keep brining in terminology that doesn't apply to the Bill in an attempt to distort the issue. I have posted numerous places now what the EXACT wording of the bill is, and you must either be ignoring reality, or just of poor comprehension - because it makes no sense that you are still unclear as to whom and how the provisions of the Bill would be applied.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
America's very own Enabling Act.
Passed during the height of distraction (Christmas, Football, Republican Primary Race and whatever the hell else the media wants to spoon feed the masses to keep the eyes off of important news), slipped into a military budget that would be difficult to not pass. Scary times.
Passed during the height of distraction (Christmas, Football, Republican Primary Race and whatever the hell else the media wants to spoon feed the masses to keep the eyes off of important news), slipped into a military budget that would be difficult to not pass. Scary times.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Are they going to vote on this today?
Cali chronic
Well-Known Member
I suppose the rest of the world will take it with a grain of salt. Like the Philippines tribunal (or wherever it was) Proving Bush and Blair are both war criminals. The US did not even blink an eye. But if it were the other way around... Whoa, watch out for a drone attack.... Politicians live in the ultimate, of Paranoia.
Kind of comforting to know those worthless bastards are scared of everything. Too bad we feel the repercussion of it at the airport and what not. Time to head to the hills and use my paid for cash, droid for a hot spot and calls. Make sure you always pay cash for your top up minutes. South America, here I come. Well soon, anyways.
Kind of comforting to know those worthless bastards are scared of everything. Too bad we feel the repercussion of it at the airport and what not. Time to head to the hills and use my paid for cash, droid for a hot spot and calls. Make sure you always pay cash for your top up minutes. South America, here I come. Well soon, anyways.
budlover13
King Tut
Again, look at the pre-requisites to being an "alleged" terrorist.
Ok I read the bill it absolutely allows for the detention without trial. The exemptions are to the requirements to hold them indefinitely. They can and will they just don't have to hold you.
Edit: not only does it allow but requires them to arrest anyone, anywhere, anytime, without charge or trial or even an accusation. If they are acting in a conflicting manner to the u.s. or allies. It just doesn't require them to hold legal u.s. residents till the end of hostilities.
budlover13
King Tut
This is the video i was referring to. If one can be an alleged terrorist for having more than 7 day's worth of food then this act implicates 90% or more of American households. Missing fingers? Weather-proofed ammo?
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
It passed the House 406-17.
Obama has threatened veto, but I don't trust it will happen. It has the votes to pass anyway and override any veto if Congress goes that route.
Obama has threatened veto, but I don't trust it will happen. It has the votes to pass anyway and override any veto if Congress goes that route.
President Obama threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) unless lawmakers remove the provision authorizing indefinite military detention of US citizens believed to have engaged in terrorist activities. The $662 billion Senate bill passed in a 93-7 vote on Dec. 1, 2011.
budlover13
King Tut
We'll see where he stands soon then. Politically motivated or not.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
So...if you read the bill you would have seen...
Like what's in the bill, and I have repeated numerous times here: If you are NOT a member of Al Qaeda, and live IN the US, this bill does not apply to you, and it CANNOT apply to you.
However, if you are a terrorist, living outside the US, regardless of citizenship, and are planning attacks or providing support to terrorist...then you should worry.
Just read the damn bill, don't just pretend.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:6:./temp/~c112JVBTOl:e578148
That is a link to the text of the sections in question. Just friggin read it already.
budlover13
King Tut
i've read it, many times Ruiner. It seems to be a difference in interpretation/English language that we disagree on imo.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
Okay...so PLEASE post the TEXT FROM THE BILL that clearly presents evidence supporting your claim.