Impeach Every Senator Who Votes for "U.S. is a Battlefield" Bill that Violates Basic

katsung47

Newbie
Mar 8, 2011
1,504
93
✟31,385.00
Faith
Atheist
When the Senate and the House passed the NDAA with majority while in Internet, people overwhelmly oppose the Act, what does that mean?

It means the law makers don't represent their citzens anymore. They work for a little group of rulers - Pentagon and Intelligence. (DOD and DOJ.) They control the media and election. They pick up their favorite through rigged election and justify the result by fake poll.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seashale76
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,562
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
ACLUs statement regarding that section ^^

“Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so. But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

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. (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions 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 person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Kiss Your Rights Goodbye, America.

Yeah, this is the ACLU characterization of what this law says. Now, do some thinking for yourself, and ask whether the characterization by the ACLU is accurate? What part of the law supports what they are saying, because I find very little to actually support their interpretation of this law.

The ACLU is guilty of sensationalism here and you quite simply bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
 
Upvote 0
P

Publius

Guest
Yeah, this is the ACLU characterization of what this law says. Now, do some thinking for yourself, and ask whether the characterization by the ACLU is accurate? What part of the law supports what they are saying, because I find very little to actually support their interpretation of this law.

The ACLU is guilty of sensationalism here and you quite simply bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

If it was just the ACLU, then you might be right. But this has been corroborated by several sources.
 
Upvote 0

katsung47

Newbie
Mar 8, 2011
1,504
93
✟31,385.00
Faith
Atheist
700. National Defense Authorization Act (1/2/2012)

The Gift of New Year 2012 President Obama gives Americans is a new law that ripped their civil right – NDAA.

1. It is a stealth raid on people.

The Act was proposed in later November, quickly passed by the Senate and the House during the Thanksgiving holiday and Christmas season. It was signed by President on New Year’s Day Eve. It was a typical military style - a stealth attack on civil rights taking the advantage when people were relaxing their vigilance in holiday season.

2. So said mainstream media kept a tight mouth on this important issue. Blind the eyes of a lot of people.

3. Majority of law makers and the President passed the Act. It proves the “politicians” don't represent the voice of the people. It also proves the election system has been hijacked by the intelligence already. The so said representatives are not elected by the voters but selected by the rulers of this country.

4. Beware the Feds to turn the US into a “battle field” so they could eliminate the dissenters. It’s easy for them to do so – just plant a few provocateurs in Occupy Wall Street Movement.

5. War on Iran is their major goal. With great possibility, there will be false flag nuclear attacks on US cities to justify the Iran war. Most people realize the truth of the 911 attack. This law is created to deal with the people who won’t believe this government anymore when such “terror attack” happens again.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,562
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If it was just the ACLU, then you might be right. But this has been corroborated by several sources.

Oh, well, if several sources are in agreement, then they must be right? Non-sense.
 
Upvote 0

katsung47

Newbie
Mar 8, 2011
1,504
93
✟31,385.00
Faith
Atheist
Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act

17 January, 2012, 02:28

US President Barack Obama is the target of a suit filed by Pulitzer Prize-winner Hedges, and the reasoning seems more than obvious to him. The decision to take the commander-in-chief to court comes as a response to President Obama’s December 31 signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, a legislation that allows the US military to detain American citizens indefinitely at off-site torture prisons like Guantanamo Bay.

Obama amended the NDAA with a signing statement on New Year's Eve, insisting that while the Act does indeed give him the power to detain his own citizens indefinitely without charge, that doesn’t mean he will do so. Specifically, Obama wrote that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Under another piece of legislation, however, the government is being granted the right to suspend citizenship of any American if the Enemy Expatriation Act joins the ranks of the NDAA as an atrocious act approved by the president.

Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act — RT
 
Upvote 0

katsung47

Newbie
Mar 8, 2011
1,504
93
✟31,385.00
Faith
Atheist
Washington Republicans want to repeal NDAA

By The Stranger February 3, 2012


Reps. Jason Overstreet, Matt Shea, Vincent Buys, Cary Condotta and David Taylor, all Republicans, have introduced HB 2759, or the Washington State Preservation of Liberty Act. With the bill, the lawmakers aim to tackle the NDAA provisions that make American citizens on par with al-Qaeda terrorists in terms of making anyone in the US eligible for stay at the Guantanamo Bay military prison.

» Washington Republicans want to repeal NDAA Mutiny Radio
 
Upvote 0

Prayer Circle

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2012
894
89
OK, Why am I in this handbasket?
✟1,539.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
:amen: And :amen: :clap: I would love to see this happen before the 2012 election.
Sadly, I think all of us who support such a measure are collective dreamers. :groupray:

After all, both the House, controlled in majority by the GOP, and the Senate had to authorize this measure to go through the approval process before it reached president Obama's desk, yes?

So in effect, they're all in it together.

And how is this possible? I thought Bush Jr. should have been impeached beginning with his signing of the U.S. Patriot act. Which was the act that preceded the slow erosion of our Republic and our citizen rights unto what it has evolved into today. One bill, one signature unto law, at a time.

And now this. And all because the United States has been under a permanent state of national emergency since 1933.
Which is how it comes to be that we have standing military in all of our States.

I did click the OP link. However all I could see were links at the Care2 site. (Love Care2 :) )
So I thought perhaps the bill/law afforded at the Thomas Library would assist as well in order to have the full language available.
Senate Bill 1867 AKA/ "The National Defense Authorization Act "​
(*Interestingly enough, regarding the Bill number, in 1867 was when the "Tenure of Office Act" went into effect. (until 1887)



And/ KNOW YOUR RIGHTS - When Encountering Law Enforcement is a great ACLU document in PDF form. (Unable to post a link to this but a GOOGLE or YAHOO search will bring it up using those keywords.)

The more you know...
use to mean we the people stood to be empowered.
Now, not so much.

God help us all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

katsung47

Newbie
Mar 8, 2011
1,504
93
✟31,385.00
Faith
Atheist
NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote

Posted by Michael Boldin

Today, the Virginia Senate took a firm stand in support of liberty, the Constitution for the United States, and the Constitution of Virginia by voting in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160), the “NDAA Nullification Act.”

The final vote was 39-1.

After a motion to recommit (delay until next year) went down to the wire before being rejected yesterday (report here), groups across the political spectrum activated in support of the legislation, which codifies in law that no agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia – including defense forces and national guard troops, will comply with or assist the federal government in any way under it’s newly claimed powers to arrest and detain without due process.

NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote – Tenth Amendment Center
 
Upvote 0

katsung47

Newbie
Mar 8, 2011
1,504
93
✟31,385.00
Faith
Atheist
This roused a question for me. Why the Federal government lawmakers passed the NDAA in large proportion? The Act is obvious violation to the Constitution that the media even dare not to discuss it.

Several days after 911, there was an anthrax attack targetted on Senators that forced the passing through of Patriot Act. In October 2002, there was a Washington DC sniper spree which intimidate the lawmakers to pass the bill of Armed force Authorization in Iraq. (for war on Iraq). It's ten years since then. Our congress and Senato now has been trained to tamed sheeples under the whips of Pentagon and FBI?
 
Upvote 0