I support small government because that was intended and it works. Big state government and small federal government. It was to avoid shit like a 16 trillion dollar deficit and a government that would infringe our rights Do you know what communism is? I don't understand how defending the constitution is an act of communism. Please explain. The difference between us and Europeans is clear. They fight against shit they don't like. 250,000 people in London, they didn't need guns because they had numbers. U.S. citizens are too close minded and choose not to help themselves. People have the right to protest. It is a right, one of the 5 basic civil rights that all U.S. citizens have. Water boarding for a peaceful protest? are you fucking stupid. They are trying to wake up Americans to the bullshit that is happening in our government. If it wasn't for protest like these there would be no women's rights, no rights for anyone but white men. I'm a white male, but i mean fuck, how can i call myself an American if the "equal rights" are for only white males. There were protests against the Vietnam War. We were fighting a loosing war that we forced are way into to stop communism and it didn't even work. The U.S. created an incident (Tonkin Gulf) to put armed troops in Vietnam. Citizens learned about this when a soldier released hundreds of Pentagon documents to the media. ^That makes me wonder if the 9/11 was an inside Job. I mean, the goverment has interests in the middle east like oil and spreading democracy to countries that again and again turn there backs on us and fight us with the weapons we give them. But back to my point, does Wikileaks ring a bell to anyone, a soldier in the pentagon released a set of documents to wiki.
There's your proof: Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And this is what the government made up to get into Nam: Gulf of Tonkin incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It had a lot more impact at the time then wikileaks has had. Back then people actually cared. The US population has grown more and more apathetic since then. They had a lot more Ron Pauls and more liberals who actually opposed imperialism back then.
See you in Alaska. 1 cop per 50 miles, lots of places to hide and live even when everything goes to hell.
They already did this to the japenese, and do it today just not with the military. But yea this would suck and make it easier for them to do so. Im gunna get the fuck outta this country.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
Here is part of the text to the bill that pertains to this thread (link to full text of bill will be at the bottom) : 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. Full bill text : Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
""(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."" With this little paragraph,,if they decide you are posting materials on the internet that is harming one of their policies(such as drug law reform,tax reform or any of their money schemes,they can arrest anyone and hold them with out legal recourse..it may not start out used like that but they will if they have to.
part a. under what you have to do for this to happen says that if you act in coordination with a terrorist group, you can get thrown in jail yada yada. together with the supreme court ruling that material support to terrorists includes speaking for them. and, if you held positions similar to say, al-qaeda's, and the decided you acted "in coordination" with them and not by yourself, well, that is material support to al-Qaeda. what does material support for terrorism look like The War on Terror, 'Material Support,' and the First Amendment Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Project Don't extend 'war on terrorism' It really was pretty hard to find any information about this. you'd think there'd be more discussion about the material support laws.
I made a boo boo today that I hope doesn't come back to haunt me. I was in a heated conversation with some fellow students at my University, we were talking about the Federal Reserve and politics in general. One of the guys was acting holier than thou because he was a "moderate" he was defending both dems and repubs saying that I should respect both of their points of views. He then said that he fully supported the Federal Reserve because he felt they were taking the moderate course and for me to remember that we are all on the same side and then started to talk about the "true" enemies like Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I lost it and said no we are not all on the same side and that the Federal Reserve and the bankers had done worse things than the Taliban could dream of and that I would side with the Taliban any day against the Federal Reserve and the bankers who have bought the government. The guy stormed off and now I'm sitting here smoking bud waiting for Homeland Security to show up. lol!
you were probably fine till you posted about it on the internet! It was really nice sharing the forum with ya, you're a good blade. If you stop posting, I'll know where you are. and I'll miss your presence here.
What about people who speak out against the United State's war on terrorism in general? Does anyone know if this proposed legislation could be used against them?
""(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.""
Don't get me wrong, because I don't believe the bill is even necessary, but you do realize that they cannot act against American citizens, nor resident aliens?!? Read the below bolded parts again;