National Defense Authorization Act Petition

Discussion in 'Politics' started by StrainX, Dec 8, 2011.

  1. Congress Approves Provisions for Indefinite Arrests and Detention of US Citizens

    , SF Conservative Examiner
    December 18, 2011

    Enemies of the People & U.S. Constitution; Congressional Traitors Approved Provisions for Indefinite Arrests, and Detentions of U.S. Citizens, with no Due Processes, Mainly Those Who Criticize Government:

    S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, attacks on our liberties was passed to the dismay of Libertarians all over.

    Congress Approves Provisions for Indefinite Arrests and Detention of US Citizens - San Francisco Conservative | Examiner.com
     
  2. [quote name='"katsung47"']Congress Approves Provisions for Indefinite Arrests and Detention of US Citizens

    , SF Conservative Examiner
    December 18, 2011

    Enemies of the People & U.S. Constitution; Congressional Traitors Approved Provisions for Indefinite Arrests, and Detentions of U.S. Citizens, with no Due Processes, Mainly Those Who Criticize Government:

    S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, attacks on our liberties was passed to the dismay of Libertarians all over.

    Congress Approves Provisions for Indefinite Arrests and Detention of US Citizens - San Francisco Conservative | Examiner.com[/quote]

    I believe the NDAA was amended to some extent before it passed through congress.
     
  3. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS35ciaW-fs]Message FROM the Militia to Civilians - YouTube[/ame]

    when big brother comes a knocking, these guys ^ are your best friends
     
  4. Because the bill supports indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens and the last thing I want to do is put my name and info on their list of who opposes it. Come on dude. Think. There is no way to get this bill reversed. We will actually have to physically fight for our rights. Prepare yourself. The time for words is over. Unless you have trillions of dollars. Then you could just buy the politicians yourself. That's the only way they would change their vote.
     
  5. You want change?

    Stop feeding to the gov.
     

  6. 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.
    http://www.unforumzed.com/showthread.php?2685-Kiss-Your-Rights-Goodbye-America./page3
     
  7. I think the fax machine that receives the petitions for the white house website is conveniently located next to President Obamas toilet.
     
  8. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5DTrRyMzLo&feature=player_embedded]FEMA camps, the NDAA, and reality. - YouTube[/ame]
     
  9. Hell I don't care i signed the one about the senators, not on whitehouse gov site though
     
  10. It's another attempt to expand DOD power.

    695. The collusion of D.O.D. and D.O.J. (11/28/2011)

    In July 2000, I returned to the States from the drift in South-east Asia. With bitter experience there, I started to write in the Internet to reveal the dark side of the Feds (FBI and DEA). The mole scare of light, the Feds were in panic. On November 12, 2000, there was a big article in San Jose Mercury News – “Killing Pablo”. It said "Pentagon officials were concerned that US forces were possibly violating a presidential directive that prohibited American involvement in assassinations of foreign citizens. " To kill Columbia drug lord Pablo Escoba, US government spent millions in a covert operation in which a secret group assassinated about 300 people. No one was ever prosecuted. US ambassador, DEA, special force of pentagon were involved. The full extent of the US role has never been made public.

    Then why did they make it public this time? The article was more of extortion then news. D.O.J. to other department of the government: “You did something illegal abroad, so when I do same thing domestically, keep your mouth shut up. “

    But Pablo Escoba was a drug lord, Kat Sung and his family is innocent. That’s totally different. The Feds had to frame a case against him. They found a collaborator- Chinese secret police. China is a big country. The price they asked for was big too: To host the 2008 Olympic and to be the member of WTO. (Chinese merchandise now can bypass the tax barrier to all members of the World Trade Organization.)Both were important to boost Chinese economy. For the Feds, nothing was more important than to cover up their crime. The interest of the USA was thrown behind. China got what they wanted.

    How could they let US government make such a big concession to a potential rival country? Then we saw the April 2000 EP-3 spy plane incident. US paid a huge ransom to release the crew of the spy plane in a secret deal. However, it was a big strategy loss for the US. Both heads of the FBI and the DEA had to leave their office for that secret deal.

    The D.O.D. and the D.O.J. had a collusion in April 2000. In that month, D.O.D. had its spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter and landed in Hainan Island of Chna. With the help of the Pentagon, the D.O.J. got a secret deal from China to frame a drug case they wanted. (however, the framed drug case went soured and failed again and again under my revelation until now)

    In same month, under the influence of the D.O.J. (I say so because it’s FBI who controls domestic society) Silverstein got the lease of the Twin Towers. WTC were under control, prepared for the collapse in coming September. Pentagon got what they wanted: the war in Middle East.


    The 2000 April ended with these two events – spy plane incident and new lease of WTC, a cross deal between the D.O.D. and the D.O.J..A false flag terror attack was ready. On first day next month, ABC news let out the news of “Operation Northwoods”.


    If you think you have this news because of the Information freedom Act, then you are wrong. It was a pre-psychological propaganda – part of the 911 plot. It was used to justify the coming 911 attack. It told other government officials: “See, we didn’t start it. It was created by former military leaders. We just copy it.”


    696. Two bombings to achieve the Patriot Act Bill (12/5/2011)

    In 1990s twice I left US because I couldn’t endure the persecution from the Feds. At that time, the US was still a free country. I bought an air ticket. No one asked a word. There was no security search. It was like a domestic bus trip. That now becomes Alice in Wonderland. It was not the Feds wanted. They needed a power to search and detain without any reason. To achieve that goal, they activated two “terror attacks”.

    The first attempt was OKC bombing. I allege so based on timing. I left US in July 1994 and returned in May 1995. The Feds must have felt the needs of a law to confine their dislikes to travel freely. To get me back to the US, they had dealt with the Chinese secret police. In April, my application to extend my stay in Shanghai was rejected. In same month, OKC bombing took place.

    The evidence now proved the FBI conducted this bombing.




    In early 2000s, I have learned from a news that said former FBI Chief Louis Freeh had proposed a bill similar to the Patriot Act after OKC bombing but failed to get it go through. I tried to have a google search for that article but failed. The Feds must have sheltered most information that related to their crime. They control information with their cyber team and NSA. Anyhow, I found another information little noticed by the public.


    Although the Feds failed to get The Patriot Act in 1996, that AEDPA revealed their intention. Be noticed that the title shows they used terrorism to expand their power five years earlier of 911.

    Next time I left US in March 1999 and returned to the States in July 2000. One year later they bombed WTC. This time they got what they wanted – the Patriot Act.

    The Patriot Act gives the Feds expanded (unreasonable) power of search and arrest. It seems they do not satisfy with this. Now they want to have the power to detain the citizens without trial for life.


    With this Act, what’s the good for the Constitution?
     
  11. National Defense Authorization Act Outrage Continues To Grow Online
    David Seaman |January 05, 2012

    In case you've been living under a particularly large and comfy rock, the NDAA is a radical and dangerous bill -- which Barack Hussein Obama quietly signed into law on New Year's Eve, while almost every American was preoccupied with New Year's binge drinking. (His administration had previously vowed to veto the NDAA, before strangely reversing course and signing it into law. He issued a signing statement saying his administration would not use the controversial indefinite detention provisions. This promise, however, is not legally binding -- and it also does not prevent future Presidents from detaining and torturing American citizens without the right to a trial or attorney, and without bringing formal charges against them. The signing statement is the legal equivalent of a Post-it note affixed to a manuscript.)

    How bad is this law, really? Here are some experts:

    ......

    National Defense Authorization Act Outrage Continues To Grow Online - Business Insider
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Right now, Ron Paul getting elected is the only way to put a stop the NDAA.
     
  13. something big is coming, and they're preparing for it. wether its the aftermath of an economic collapse, where the dollar no longer buys anything, and those fighting in search of the basic necessities needed to live are controlled under the domestic military, or we start burning into oil reserves as production continues to trickle down to nothing, causing the same scenario, we all have a scary, death filled road ahead. even if we do make it past the "end" on the 21st, our future is bleak at best. and im an optimist
     
  14. < ready for combat:mad:
     
  15. You are naive. Ron Paul is not the favorite of the ruler of this country. He has no chance.

    SHOCKING PROOF: IOWA GOP RIGGED CAUCUS VOTES
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEPYVqU6sXw&feature=relatedNG"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEPYVqU6sXw&feature=relatedNG[/ame]

    They hide the real poll if it's not their favor. That's what you saw in Ron Paul's.

    They'll create fake poll later, especially in formal election. At that time, they'll activate all their resources to make it looking like a "democratic election". That's why I call it a covert totalitarian.

    Unless you reform the election to a "count the votes at present", you never get a representative of your own.
     
  16. #36 Tripace, Jan 13, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2012
    If that were true, then Ron Paul wouldn't have been reported as close to the top as he was, he made a very close third in Iowa and close second in New Hampshire. They can't hide the facts that he has huge potential for winning.
    And if it came down to him or Romney, he would take the conservative vote, then if it came to him. And Obama, he's got it nailed.
     
  17. Better stock up on twinkies, its about to go zombie land on this mutha fuckin country
     
  18. In election, second means nothing, let alone third. They always play the trick that you almost win. This time they made a eight votes difference. Another gimmick to lure you into "fierece competition". All are directed show.

    Here there is a gap for you to peep the inside operation:

    Mainstream Media Lies: 23 Things That Are Not What They Seem To Be On Television
    Most Americans believe the lie that the mainstream media is "fair and balanced" and is looking out for the interests of average Americans. Well, that simply is not true. .........
    The following are 23 things that are not what they seem to be on television....

    The Lie: Mitt Romney won Iowa.

    The Truth: Mitt Romney may not have won Iowa. The following report of a documented vote discrepancy comes from KCCI....

    Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn't.

    "When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I've got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa," True said. "Not Mitt Romney."

    True said at his 53-person caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library, Romney received two votes. According to the Iowa Republican Party's website, True's precinct cast 22 votes for Romney.
    So how many other "vote discrepancies" were there in Iowa? Was this just a "coincidence" or did someone do this on purpose?
    .......
    http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/mainstream-media-lies-23-things-that-are-not-what-they-seem-to-be-on-television?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mainstream-media-lies-23-things-that-are-not-what-they-seem-to-be-on-television
     
  19. We've got bad things coming no matter what happens. We could easily switch fuel resources but that'd be less money for the fuckers lining their pockets.
     
  20. They behaved like a thief.

     

Share This Page