S. 1867 National Defense Authorization Act

[Voyageur]

Firstly:

Yes and no, but it seems so much easier to sleep then truly look and act. The ACT above is designed to help people fighting the urge to sleep, a friendly reminder from the PTB.

Edit: The above bold should have read wake.

My brother in law is a 20 year veteran in the armed forces, if facing me or someone else in a undesirable movement of people against the others, would he, if blindly ordered shoot? Right now he might, just don't know, but would not bet on it. The cop down the street if faced with the same, would he or she if ordered break skull's or would their human capacitor cause them to turn away from specious orders?

You seem to be ignoring that what you 'wouldn't bet on' is already happening...

Did not intend to support ignoring with the above as written, can see why it came across that way. I am under no illusion that this is not so, not only yesterday but today - it is happening all around us. As for he, at one time after Bosnia he showed humanity in his words for both sides, his aversion for what was being done, even though he did not understand the manipulation of this cold event. Now he is not the same, he is angry and only the supreme acknowledgement of what they do for our freedom suffices his ego. In this respect, his intent has changed and he would likely answer to orders even if he recognized me in his sights – that’s chilling and would not want to bet that he wouldn’t.

[quote author=Al Today]

U.S. troops have already fired upon the citizenry in the past.. The precedent has been established as demonstrated at Kent State on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guys and guys of the military have been and still are going through a finely tuned mind alteration program starting with boot camp. [/quote]

Yes to the first and second, as are humans in general to different degrees since birth.

My first experience other than in printed word or picture was as a eleven year old child in the city streets during the War Measures Act (WMA) in Quebec whereby tanks, snipers and soldiers, were then ordered to locked down the city during the FLQ (Front de libération du Québec) movement. The WMA was, like today's Wall Street, in support of the ruling anglophone 1% primarily. Have never been satisfied with the official version, similar to what is know of the IRA manipulations for instance, yet this WMA, as well as the bombings; one which blew out my grandmothers windows as collateral damage from a mailbox across the street, played on our collective consciousnesses for years to come, feeding the illusion that the PTB were offering.

 

[soulshifter]

I don't know if anyone else is in the same position I am in with regards to this S. 1867 National Defense Authorization Act, but I will admit that I need more understanding on this specific situation. What I have heard (from word of mouth) and have read (from internet postings) seems to point to the main theme of the president having the authority to use military force to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process. In other words, more of the same and a repeating of themes from the past.

So I decided it's time to inform myself and maybe increase my knowledge and learning about this specific bill, and begin my journey of doing more dialog and networking here than just reading all the time.

Starting out, you can go to the Library of Congress website and use their THOMAS database to obtain a copy of the this bill online to read for yourself. This link will get you there directly:

_http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

So when I started scrolling through the bill the first thing that I noticed is that there are 5503 sections in this bill! (OMG… How am I going to be able to get through all of this, and then my next question was How does the Senate get through all of this fully informed about every detail?!) If you do any search on the internet about this bill you quickly find out that the sections of focus have been sections 1031 and 1032.

Sections 1031 and 1032 states:

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.

• (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended 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 regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).


SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
• (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

◦ (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (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 detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

▪ (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 purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

◦ (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

• (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

◦ (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

◦ (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

• (c) Implementation Procedures-

◦ (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

◦ (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

▪ (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

▪ (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

▪ (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

▪ (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

▪ (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

• (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

 

[soulshifter]

The first thing that you see in "1031 (a)" is that Congress is affirming the President's authority to use Military Force, including the Armed Forces of the US, to detain certain people with certain intentions till certain things happen. Next in "1031 b" the bill gives a definition to these certain people with said intentions. Anyone that (they say) planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 or harbored those responsible for the attacks. (FWIW, These definitions are so loose that it technically could include any hotel, inn, cab driver, bus driver that "aided" or "gave refuge" knowingly or unknowingly for the terrorist in their daily travels.)

Under "1031 c" there is the definition of what's going to happen in relation to these covered persons: 1) Detained without trial till the hostilities are over. (What defines hostilities here?? That means that they could NEVER be over!?) 2) till Trial. 3) till Transfer to trial. 4) till Transfer to country of origin. This is the part of this bill that shows that certain people could potentially be detained indefinitely.

What you see next in the "1031 d, e, f " sections IMO are the classic "double speak" fluffs that are the mode of operation for psychopathy. You know how it goes by now… "I'm giving you the 2 thumbs up to go go go and detain those American citizens, but in no way does this mean that I'm giving you permission/authority to detain those American Citizens." Another version would be "The NDAA should not be read as affirming or prohibiting citizen detention." To me this is BS, and these portions were added into the wording of the bill to appease opponents of the bill and to confuse the public. But this fluff works, and that is why it's done. When I first looked at the bill wording, I thought to myself, "Why is everyone saying that this includes US citizens?? It says it right there! US citizens are excluded from all this indefinite detaining! Then the confusion started to clear as I started doing more thought and research about the issue, and this short clip came to my attention.

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=aUHh1iqe43w

In this clip on 11/29/11 Senator Rand Paul and Senator McCain talk about the issue of detainees and if US citizens will be included in this definition. Sen. Paul asks Sen. McCain (a co-supporter of the bill) if "under the provisions (of this bill), would it be possible that an American citizen could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?" The answer I was expecting was a quoting of Section "1031 e" reminding everyone that this bill does not effect any existing laws relating to detaining US citizens, and US citizens are excluded from this "requirement" of detention. Instead, McCain answers by saying, "I think that as long as that individual, uh, 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. I think that is the majority of American public opinion especially in light of the facts that I continue to repeat to the Senator from Kentucky. 27% of detainees that were released get back into the fight and are responsible for the deaths of Americans. We need to take every step necessary to prevent that from happening. That is for the safety and security of the men and woman that are out there putting their lives on the line in our armed services."

So McCain indirectly says that, Yes, if a US citizen is posing a threat they will be detained, and we should do this because some detainees that are released kill our soldiers.

It seems to me (OSIT) that even though there is specific wording in the bill to give the impression that there is no intention to have this bill act as a "policing" of US citizens, this bill is yet another step in the police state "ladder" that the US has been climbing for some time now with its use of this hoax called war on terror.

Is this surprising? No. Is this saddening? Yes.

I welcome any thoughts, corrections, additions, or comments on this

 

[MnSportsman]

Just a thought...as an example:

All it would take is a purported statement by someone in al Queada(sp.munged), or any "associated" groups, to announce/say that they support the OWS protests; & then by association, the OWS folks could be construed as "aiding" hostile groups, by their protest(s)/actions.

I quote this person (Donnie Shaw/article about Sect. 1031 of S.1867 N.D.A.A.) since his statement basically is saying the same thing I am trying to say, but likely in a better way:

"The key phrase, according to my reading, is: “A person who was a part of or substantially supported […] associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With Libya, we saw Obama select a definition of “hostilities” from the War Powers Act that fit his preference for not seeking authorization for military action from Congress. Political protests are disruptive and hostile by definition, so what’s to prevent a President (Obama or future) from twisting this language to detain political protesters in the same way Obama twisted the language of the War Powers Act? Similar questions ned to be asked of other language in this section, e.g. “substantially supported,” “associated forces.”

Pres.Bush seemngly used the Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force to promote or order the detention of people suspected to be terrorists.( I.E. - Gitmo bay detainees). I believe that Pres.Obama has seemingly used the same Congressional act/Law to justify Awlakis(U.S. citizen) "removal"/killing"; using that existing law as the "justificaton". I do not see either Pres, under charges for these actions. Thus the interpretation of laws like these is "twistable". & that is terrorizing to me, & I would think to other people also.

In not trying to be annoying, but to provide another example/analogy to perhaps help make my point:

Imagine that someone has taken something that belongs to you & you wish for it to be returned. If you are not able to convince the party that took your property from you to return it , you decide to legally pursue the matter in civil court. The adage, " Possession is 9/10ths of the law", would now come into play. While you spend the time,& $$s to legally pursue the return of your item, the other party has the use of that item until the release of the courts' decision, regardless of whether the court decides it is to be returned to you or not. THEY, not you, get to "use"/retain it. Then same situation might somewhat apply if "YOU" are the item being withheld & possessed, & the president authorizes "YOUR" detainment. The only difference is that "YOU", or any parties interested in your return/release, have NO court to persuade for your release, until the president authorizes that release. Since, unless this law is deemed unconstitutional, even the US Supreme Court would have to uphold the detention. Once again that old adage comes to mind, "Possession is 9/10ths of the law". So, imagine the time,& $$s that may be needed to pursue this course of action in order for you to be released...And, perhaps for naught.What might possibly be done to the "item" while detained? Torture? it seems possible since the Geneva Convention apparently does not apply to "terroristic enemy combatants". What effect, would this detenton & its' possibilities have on the detainee? Mentally/physically? It could be scary... This law possibly could be interpreted/twisted in a manner that allows for you or one of your loved ones,or friends, to be detained indefinitely. Seemingly without legal recourse. It is terrifying to think of, is it not?

It is a bad law & once again, "terroristic". OSIT


Thanks to all for your patience,
JB/MnSportsman


[ I am not sure if this topic really is suitable for this venue/forum, since the forum is for the pursuit of & aiding of those pursuing the "Work". But, I do think it is applicable for the reason of spreading valuable information that can help all. If only for knowledge purposes. I hope it continues to be an "open" topic.]

EDIT> fixed a punctuation/sentence I missed in preview.

 

[SeekinTruth]

MnSportsman, the examples you gave of interpretations/twisting to use this "law" to oppress innocent, ordinary people is the REASON for it, and quite likely has NOTHING to do with the canard of "terrorism" which is but a sick joke. In a Pathocracy, the normal population IS the number one threat, and thus enemy to the Pathocrats.

So, yeah, you and everyone else who expressed it in this thread DO have every reason to be angry and frightened by the passing of this abomination. It seems to make oppression so much easier, and the authoritarian authorities don't even have to pull as many false flag operations to eliminate their "enemies." They can just spread guilt by associate or official declaration. And, voila, indefinitely detained "enemy combatants" easily, cheaply, and without much risks, are gotten rid of. Plus all the fun and games of torturing and murdering people who have absolutely no rights according to your pathological whims and desires. It's the pathological types' wet dream.

 

[Foxx]

MnSportsman,

You seem to be very triggered an angry about this law--why? And I don't mean 'what about the law angers you', since you've written about that extensively, but 'how does this law change what's been going on in a country ruled by law-breaking psychopaths dictating for the benefit of the psychopathic bankers in a country founded on stolen land and genocide since its inception?' beyond being just the latest round (and an obvious result of past events) in their plans for global domination.

From my perspective, since you mentioned having been in the marines and consider yourself to be a patriot, that you identify with a belief in what america is/was that has never been true. "America", the "United States of America" is a country that stole all the land it has from the indigenous peoples of this continent while slaughtering them (genocide) using any means desired to install a government that was never "for the people", but clearly for the bankers, elite (which could be "the people", depending on the legal definition used), and psychopaths. It has, historically, used any means necessary to suppress genuine populist uprising and any person (ie JFK) who seeks to take power away from the bankers and ruling elite. It has, historically and contemporarily, attacked itself/engineered situations explicitly for the purpose of going to war to profit the bankers and extend the empire. It has had a manipulated market economy and ponzi-scheme banking cartel for at least the last 100 years. The brilliance of "america" is that it created an idea and indoctrinated it into people that "america" is the "land of the free and home of the brave" and a "beacon of democracy" and that its inhabitants were free--it's not and never has been. Such ideas are totally false and have been from the start.

From my perspective, I think the reason you might find this particular bill so angering is that you're now realizing that the above paragraph is true and that you've been duped all along with an idea that you strongly identify with. Because this bill doesn't really change anything they've been doing--it's just the possible tipping point from moving from covert to overt totalitarianism, which is/would have been reached inevitably anyway. I would suggest looking into yourself to see if you've identified with any of this rhetoric used by the american propaganda/indoctrination machine and reflect on 9/11 being a false flag attack, guantanamo bay, the invasion of more countries than I can list, and the non-propagandized history of america--and ask yourself what about this bill, specifically, has you so upset? Is it the identification with the ideal? Is it that you now feel targeted personally?

If this point was inevitable to reach (which, I would bet, it probably was quite some time ago--certainly within the last decade or so, if not hundreds/thousands/longer of years--who couldn't see this coming after the "patriot" act?) and does not significantly change policies (it is, perhaps, slightly more fair--why should americans escape the global control/slaughter/oppression of the psychopathic state that they fund? And, to note, I am american in america), why get upset? And why write about it here?

From my perspective, the best use of time is to educate oneself and others on psychopathy, health (oneself's and others'), objective reality, and The Work, and that ranting/"venting" to a populace largely aware of what's going on is not the optimal use of time or energy.

But that's just my opinion.

I would also caution against underestimating mind programming/what the enforcement arm of the control system will do.

 

[MnSportsman]

MnSportsman, the examples you gave of interpretations/twisting to use this "law" to oppress innocent, ordinary people is the REASON for it, and quite likely has NOTHING to do with the canard of "terrorism" which is but a sick joke. In a Pathocracy, the normal population IS the number one threat, and thus enemy to the Pathocrats.

I agree, Seekintruth, that the reason this law was passed is for the law to be used to oppress innocent, ordinary people. { The sheep are asleep, but the sheep dogs are barking because the wolves are getting closer. }
I also agree that it is likely that it has nothing to do with any terrrorists/terrorism "from outside" the US. To wit, I agree with your words, "the canard of "terrorism" { The wolves have always been out there, they are just getting closer. }

Which is the one of the reasons to my introducing this topic.

So, yeah, you and everyone else who expressed it in this thread DO have every reason to be angry and frightened by the passing of this abomination. It seems to make oppression so much easier, and the authoritarian authorities don't even have to pull as many false flag operations to eliminate their "enemies." They can just spread guilt by associate or official declaration. And, voila, indefinitely detained "enemy combatants" easily, cheaply, and without much risks, are gotten rid of. Plus all the fun and games of torturing and murdering people who have absolutely no rights according to your pathological whims and desires. It's the pathological types' wet dream.

I agree.

Now that we understand this, & agree. Do you have any suggestions to help remedy this situation? I am of the thinking that the "terrorists" have come from within; & this law was passed by those who wish to terrorize. { The sheep are still asleep. The sheepdogs are still barking, & the wolves still approach even closer yet. }
I know what I am doing & plan to do. I will make every attempt I can come up with, to make people more aware of what is happening. Perhaps there will be more "sheep dogs" to raise the alarm. If not, then I rather go out like a dog than a sheep. I hope that maybe, just maybe, a solution to this problem will be found.

Respects & regards,
JB/MNSportsman

Edit. Fixed a mispell, hopefully the only one.)

 

[MnSportsman]

Foxx,
Since your post is lengthy & I do not wish to take up the space to answer you ,"point by point" unnecessarily, I will try to explain as best & as concisely as I can. Should you desire a point to point. I will return & do so upon request. But for now, here is my "take", on your post.
-------------------
Foxx,

Long ago I took an oath. One I did not take lightly then, & I still take it very seriously now. It is of my opinion that you do not know about this oath, so I will share it with you now. It is the Oath of Enlistment of the US Armed Forces:

"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I also will offer this, so that you might understand a bit more:

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.


The U.S. House of Rep.& the U.S. Senate also take an Oath of Affirmation that is just about the same as the one I offered above. Here it is:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Now I offer that there are many who think the way I do regarding that oath I took. I am sure that there are some that do not. But, I suggest that there is no"duration" for that oath. I affirmed it & as far as I am concerned it was a lifelong oath. Regardless if I had stayed in the armed forces as a career, or not. So, even if others don't take that oath as seriously as I do, both while I was in the Armed forces, and do now; I still feel a responsibility to support & defend the U.S Constitution. I also expect anyone who takes that oath, or one like it to stand by that oath for at least the duration of the time that they serve. Including the U.S. Congress currently serving...

This "law" is unlawful, since it goes against the principles of the US Constitution & should have never even been considered by anyone who has sworn an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ."

That is a just a small part of why I am angered & worried about S. 1867.

I can say more, but I think that what I have written here can explain/answer most of your posts' points/questions regarding "me". If I missed anything, or have not been clear enough; then specific questions would help me answer you better. Or if anyone desires it, I will go thru Foxxs' post & answer each point directly. I believe I have answered well enough by answering the way I just did..

Best Wishes,
JB/MnSportsman

(italics & bolds were created by me/JB)

 

[MnSportsman]

Unfortunately, I did forget one thing I wanted to say.

I would suggest that some folks need to go back & research why the American Revolution was fought, & some of the American history prior to, during, & just after the American Revolution. In order to understand more of the "Why" the U.S. of America was founded, & the principles that were being fought over to create it. It seems that some folks have either forgotten, or just missed out on learning about it. Reading the U.S. Constitution & its' Amendments might be a good read also. Those "founding fathers" had a bunch of great ideas OSIT. Even though some that followed up in history changed some things.

(P.S. Foxx - Conquerors of lands, (such as the US taking from the indigenous peoples/native Americans) & peoples, then utilizing the same, has been going on for a long time, all over the world. Doesn't make it right, but the history of it goes back a long way. (Irrelevant to the current situation regarding this law. OSIT )


EDT- fixed a sentence & added parenthesis

 

[Muxel]

AMEN to what SeekinTruth and Foxx said.

Sportsman, you seem to be quite idealistic, and Foxx is trying to tell you that America was never ideal to begin with.

There is no point debating the technicalities of the law. The law is just another tool of the psychopaths. An ideal society would not need laws anyway, because everybody would have a conscience.

The American Revolution? You mean the colonists who revolted because they did not want to pay high taxes to Britain anymore? Mechanical people reacting mechanically.

The Civil War? You mean where the North didn't want the South to be independent (and sell their cotton directly to Europe) because it would cripple the economy in the North?
What's that? Slavery? No, slavery had nothing to do with it and was at best, propaganda.

Just trying to help out here, now I'm off to mind my own business....

 

[MnSportsman]

Sportsman, you seem to be quite idealistic, and Foxx is trying to tell you that America was never ideal to begin with.

Idealistic? I would say that I am pragmatic.

There is no point debating the technicalities of the law. The law is just another tool of the psychopaths. An ideal society would not need laws anyway, because everybody would have a conscience.

So, you are saying that U.S. citizens should just lay down & take what they are given? With no effort towards change? Are you saying there is no use in making an effort to change things as they develop? Such as laws like S1867?

I disagree.

Without effort to change, nothing gets changed. You pursue the "work"? Then that means you desire change for the good(progress). To make change requires effort. If a law prevents you from making the change you desire, or prevents you from pursuing your "work", or even sets you back from what you already had achieved; are you just going lay down & take what you are given? Or, are you going to make an effort to change the situation so you may continue your "work"?

No need to reply to these questions, as I am only trying to make a point.

I believe that this law needs to be changed. So I am making an effort to make sure others are aware of it also. Hopefully, with enough help, it will get changed/repealed.

The American Revolution? You mean the colonists who revolted because they did not want to pay high taxes to Britain anymore? Mechanical people reacting mechanically.

So, your belief is that is the only reason that the Declaration of Independence was written, & people fought & died to create the USA is over British taxes? Then the British troops living in peoples homes without compensation to the homeowners, being arrested for being poor, being arrested without reason, your person searched & personal property seized without reason, being detained without knowing how long you would be in that situation, etc ?? Those are just a few good reasons to revolt. I could list more. But that information is readily available if you chose to seek it out. If not for those "mechanical people acting mechanically" by revolting; if you are an American, your life/liberty & freedom may have been profoundly different than it is now, had they not succeeded.

The Civil War? You mean where the North didn't want the South to be independent (and sell their cotton directly to Europe) because it would cripple the economy in the North?
What's that? Slavery? No, slavery had nothing to do with it and was at best, propaganda.

I can give you examples of the reasons why the War Between the States/ US Civil War was fought, other than the economics & the relationship of slavery involved. I think that States' Rights, might be a big one to look into if someone wanted to know more. & Don't forget to check out why the Posse Comitatus Act was put into law just after the war, during the "Reconstruction era" if anyone wants to research. It involves Federal troops being forbidden to assist civilian law enforcement "by Law".

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

I would suggest that the phrase " Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness" is one that is, or should be familiar to any American citizen. Well, as I see it, this new law , S1867, is infringing on its' meaning.

I am tempted to quote from the US Bill of Rights, or even provide a link; to show what this new law is usurping. But those of you who may care about this situation, if you are/are not familiar with it, can, or maybe will, seek it out on your own. Upon reading or rereading it, you might see what I have been writing about.

This topic began as a "vent" I placed in Baked Noodles. Now I am glad that it was moved here. Thus I want to thank all who have replied, for it is helping me learn about myself. More importantly, it is helping me learn about you. OSIT

With respects & regards to all,
JB/MnSportsman

 

[SeekinTruth]

MnSportsman, I think you are missing the point. What Foxx, Muxel, and I were trying to point out is that many of the things that are in this new "law" were being done for a long time anyway. It's just a new, more concrete codification. That's all.

Yes, it is an abomination of a "law," whether in the context of the U.S. Constitution or any other context. Posse Comitatus, Habeas Corpus (a law going back many centuries, before the U.S. even existed), etc. were thrown out long ago, and especially obviously in the last several years. And Bush did say that the constitution is just a god damned piece of paper years ago. What about assassinating people without due process -- U.S. citizens and non citizens alike? They used to do it covertly, but in the last several years they proudly announce murdering "terrorist suspects" or "supporters," etc.

The fact is that the U.S. hasn't been a constitutional democracy for a very long time (if it ever was), but a prostitutional hypocrisy instead. It hasn't been "land of the free and home of the brave" but land of the fee and home of the slave instead, for a very long time. I understand many of the points you're making, but do you understand the points I and others are making?

Only efforts to make POSSIBLE changes are worth making. I think spreading true knowledge and Working on ourselves and gaining more and more knowledge of ourselves and the world we live in holds much greater potential for non-linear changes for the better in this pathological/insane world in which we live. Understanding how Pathocracy works and that there's been a global Pathocracy for a long time -- Government of, for, and by psychopaths -- will go a long way.

 

[Muxel]

Idealistic? I would say that I am pragmatic.

Fair enough. I'm not out to label anyone.

So, you are saying that U.S. citizens should just lay down & take what they are given? With no effort towards change? Are you saying there is no use in making an effort to change things as they develop?

No, I was not saying that. What I meant was, I consider it a futile endeavor to battle the Ruling Psychopaths with the law. They own the law! Look how they got away with violating the Constitution!

I believe that this law needs to be changed. So I am making an effort to make sure others are aware of it also. Hopefully, with enough help, it will get changed/repealed.

Sportsman, I want NDAA 2012 repealed as much as you do. But, I also wanted Obama impeached and that didn't happen. The laws of the Matrix ultimately serve the Matrix.

So, your belief is that is the only reason that the Declaration of Independence was written, & people fought & died to create the USA is over British taxes? Then the British troops living in peoples homes without compensation to the homeowners, being arrested for being poor, being arrested without reason, your person searched & personal property seized without reason, being detained without knowing how long you would be in that situation, etc ?? Those are just a few good reasons to revolt. I could list more.

Do you not see, in your mind, psychopaths pulling the strings from behind the curtain throughout history? The colonists were pawns of the psychopaths just as the British troops themselves were pawns. Knowing this, how can you still endorse their cause, and their reasoning for championing such a cause?

I can give you examples of the reasons why the War Between the States/ US Civil War was fought, other than the economics & the relationship of slavery involved. I think that States' Rights, might be a big one to look into if someone wanted to know more.

Ah, the Tenth Amendment, with which the Southern states justified their secession. Again, try to factor in psychopaths pulling strings. Also, economics were the prime motivator in the Civil War.

Don't forget to check out why the Posse Comitatus Act was put into law just after the war, during the "Reconstruction era" if anyone wants to research.

Correction, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878, after the "Reconstruction Era". And yes, NDAA 2012 effectively revokes the Posse Comitatus Act. Refer to my previous comment about Ruling Psychopaths owning the law.

Thus I want to thank all who have replied, for it is helping me learn about myself. More importantly, it is helping me learn about you. OSIT

"Or so you think"? Yes, definitely.


Let's be objective here. Assuming all was well when the Constitution was drafted, how did things get to where they are now? Does the evidence show that the law has benefited the people rather than the ruling powers, or on the contrary? Is it efficient for one to invest energy in "debugging" the law, considering the stranglehold Ruling Psychopaths seem to have on it?

 

[MnSportsman]

From SeekinTruth,

MnSportsman, I think you are missing the point. What Foxx, Muxel, and I were trying to point out is that many of the things that are in this new "law" were being done for a long time anyway. It's just a new, more concrete codification. That's all.

Yes, I understand your point of views. Apparently, like the OWS are against the economic condition that has spiraled down to unacceptability. I am against the spiraling down of our liberties & freedoms. I am aware that things have been getting bad for some time, I am not young & naive. I believe I have just reached the point that, "I am fed up & not gonna take it anymore!".

Muxel,

What I meant was, I consider it a futile endeavor to battle the Ruling Psychopaths with the law. They own the law! Look how they got away with violating the Constitution!

& I believe it is not futile to try to change the law. Womens' Suffrage & Civil Rights movements come to mind. Additionally , there are laws that have been changed (or repealed),after their initial enactment.

Do you not see, in your mind, psychopaths pulling the strings from behind the curtain throughout history? The colonists were pawns of the psychopaths just as the British troops themselves were pawns. Knowing this, how can you still endorse their cause, and their reasoning for championing such a cause?

They perhaps have been pulling strings for a long time, but to me, it seems that people have been fighting them for a long time also. I still endorse their( colonists) cause & their reasoning because "I Believe In It". [Side note: part of my military training during part of the time I was in the Corps., was to be treated like an enemy POW. It is part of the SERE training for aircrews. ( Survival, Evasion, Resistance & Escape). During "Boot"camp, & during my tour of duty as a D.I.at Parris Island also taught me much about not only being "regimented", but how to apply it. So I am aware of many of the possibilities/hardships of being detained against ones will & being treated very harshly. In civilian life, being arrested & put in jail, I might add, is also a small part of the experience to use as a comparison]
So, since I do not want to see anyone, including myself, put into conditions like that in real life & not training. ( Worldwide, but now, particularly in the USA, where our nation was partly founded on eliminating situations like that.) I am against any law that might enable it. Until one has their liberty/freedom taken away, after having it, they likely do not understand what it is like to lose all those liberties & freedoms. Sometimes you have to fight to keep them.Or, as the colonists did, fight to "get" them. (BTW. Can you imagine what liberty & freedom we might have had, if someone had not been mucking about with our DNA?)

Muxel, I also stand corrected. I should have said " just after", not "during" Reconstruction Era, since "officially" the era ended in 1877 & The P.C. act was enacted in 1878. Although to many of the South, carpetbaggers stayed around much longer that that.

Is it efficient for one to invest energy in "debugging" the law, considering the stranglehold Ruling Psychopaths seem to have on it?

Not sure on the "efficiency", but strangleholds can be broken. You just have to know, or have figured out the "How" of breaking it. To not try is to remain under the control.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{Today is my 31st wedding anniversary, I plan on spending a wonderful time celebrating with my wife, then enjoy the Christmas weekend with family & friends, since it is a good time to get together. I do not plan to think about this subject much over the next few days. I hope no one else does either.}

I hope you all enjoy your weekend too.
Have a Nice holiday!

Respects & regards,
JB/MnSportsman





EDIT: Fixed 2 sentences& added an exclamation point.

 

[Guardian]

Yawl do know Obama hasn't signed the NDAA into law YET?

While he's said he will, I think he's going to use public outcry to veto it to look good right before elections.

You can track the version that's on his desk here:
_http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540

I could be wrong, it's happened lots, but I'm predicting a big "Veto" announcement right before Christmas.

He's got to do something big to have any hope of getting re-elected, and this has looked like a set-up since the git-go?