Chris Hedges on his lawsuit against Obama and NDAA: The NDAA implodes our most cherished constitutional protections. It permits the military to function on U.S. soil as a civilian law enforcement agency. It authorizes the executive branch to order the military to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus for citizens. The law can be used to detain people deemed threats to national security, including dissidents whose rights were once protected under the First Amendment, and hold them until what is termed “the end of the hostilities.” Even the name itself—the Homeland Battlefield Bill—suggests the totalitarian concept that endless war has to be waged within “the homeland” against internal enemies as well as foreign enemies. ----- The Reagan White House, in one example, set up an internal program to distort information and intimidate and attack those of us in the region who wrote articles that countered the official narrative. The program was called “public diplomacy.” Walter Raymond Jr., a veteran CIA propagandist, ran it. The goal of the program was to manage “perceptions” about the wars in Central America among the public. That management included aggressive efforts to destroy the careers of reporters who were not compliant by branding them as communists or communist sympathizers. If the power to lock us up indefinitely without legal representation had been in the hands of Elliott Abrams or Oliver North or Raymond, he surely would have used it. -------------------- There are many groups to join on fighting different things that affect us lately. They can inform you on how to help change things. Most importantly right now I think is informing as many people as we can on the issues. Whether you feel strongly about education reform, banking reform, the environment, bringing troops home or our increasing losses of civil liberties, we really need to break out of our complacency, wake others up as well, and start to work on fixing things. I'm about to get on my knees and start begging soon.
Okay for starters, the National Defense Authorization Act separates those individuals that pose a threat to the US vs those that break civilian laws. My question to you is exactly how should US individuals who cooperate and assist known terrorists organizations be treated? Waging war against ones own country is an act of treason and should be treated as such. Caught on US soil with terror plots the suspects forfeit their rights. Treason is treason. I am not a terrorist sympathizer.
-------------- "Things turn out best for those who make the best of the way things turned out." Jack Buck
Yes Self-Banished that's definitely a shipload. Does seem a tad overkill to be practice ammo. Do you think they knew as far back as 18 months ago?
Santorini: Okay for starters, the National Defense Authorization Act separates those individuals that pose a threat to the US vs those that break civilian laws. My question to you is exactly how should US individuals who cooperate and assist known terrorists organizations be treated? ---------- The NDAA is quite vague and even people SUSPECT can be taken into custody and held without trial indefinitely. Pose a threat vs those that break civilian laws?? Uff Da.
Even Obama worries about parts of the bill? Why did he sign it then. Who was behind this bill and why? And how did it pass since almost everyone now says they were against it? ------------------ The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.
Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. --------- Oh good, we are safe under his administration. -------------
My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. ---------------- I wonder how that Enemy Expatriation Act is coming along.
-------------- Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians. Chester Bowles.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”
Yes Self-Banished that's definitely a shipload. Does seem a tad overkill to be practice ammo. Do you think they knew as far back as 18 months ago?
Santorini: Okay for starters, the National Defense Authorization Act separates those individuals that pose a threat to the US vs those that break civilian laws. My question to you is exactly how should US individuals who cooperate and assist known terrorists organizations be treated? ---------- The NDAA is quite vague and even people SUSPECT can be taken into custody and held without trial indefinitely. Pose a threat vs those that break civilian laws?? Uff Da.
Santorini: Treason is treason. I am not a terrorist sympathizer. ---------- Um...neither am I.
Waging War...absolutely! What else would you call American actions such as those by: Lymen Farris, Ryan Anderson, Kevin James, Jose Padilla, Paul Hall, Farsal Shahzah etc. Whose deliberate actions were to destroy and kill Americans and assist alQueda! You are telling me their actions do not constitute treason!! Who cares about the teaparty?! You bring them up so they must be a threat to you! You most certainly are a terrorist sympathizer...you care more about rights of those who are willing to attack us on our own soil than the rights of others to be protected from those that, with full knowledge, rebuke the laws of treason.
-------------- "Things turn out best for those who make the best of the way things turned out." Jack Buck
Yes Self-Banished that's definitely a shipload. Does seem a tad overkill to be practice ammo. Do you think they knew as far back as 18 months ago?
Santorini: Okay for starters, the National Defense Authorization Act separates those individuals that pose a threat to the US vs those that break civilian laws. My question to you is exactly how should US individuals who cooperate and assist known terrorists organizations be treated? ---------- The NDAA is quite vague and even people SUSPECT can be taken into custody and held without trial indefinitely. Pose a threat vs those that break civilian laws?? Uff Da.
Santorini: Treason is treason. I am not a terrorist sympathizer. ---------- Um...neither am I.
Waging War...absolutely! What else would you call American actions such as those by: Lymen Farris, Ryan Anderson, Kevin James, Jose Padilla, Paul Hall, Farsal Shahzah etc. Whose deliberate actions were to destroy and kill Americans and assist alQueda! You are telling me their actions do not constitute treason!! Who cares about the teaparty?! You bring them up so they must be a threat to you! You most certainly are a terrorist sympathizer...you care more about rights of those who are willing to attack us on our own soil than the rights of others to be protected from those that, with full knowledge, rebuke the laws of treason.
No you are wrong as usual. And also as usual you either do not read what others post or the voices in your head are whispering while you read. What part of "this law is too vague" don't you understand? Did you watch the video that gave some examples of what is considered "suspect of terrorists"?
Santorini: Lymen Farris, Ryan Anderson, Kevin James, Jose Padilla, Paul Hall, Farsal Shahzah etc. Whose deliberate actions were to destroy and kill Americans and assist alQueda! You are telling me their actions do not constitute treason!! ------ Me: Did I ever mention any names? Did I ever defend those people? Honestly Santorini, I think you are truly grasping at straws. ----------- Santorini: You most certainly are a terrorist sympathizer...you care more about rights of those who are willing to attack us on our own soil -------- Me: You are way beyond ridiculous. WAY! Besides, I am starting to think our governments actions are treasonous. ---------------- Santorini: Who cares about the teaparty?! You bring them up so they must be a threat to you! --- Me: OMG, now you're cracking me up!!
-------------- Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians. Chester Bowles.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”
You most certainly are a terrorist sympathizer...you care more about rights of those who are willing to attack us on our own soil than the rights of others to be protected from those that, with full knowledge, rebuke the laws of treason.
And this folks is one of the very reasons WE the American People have been placed under boot by UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws such as the UN-Patriot Act.
At what point does safety become a hindrance, or cede to Enumerated Rights? Safety MUST NEVER be placed above Enumerated Rights.
Regardless of the person, I do care about their Rights, if they have been found guilty and sentenced to prison, then their Rights are revoked. Everyone's Rights must be protected even if safety has to take a backseat. After all safety is an illusion.
I do not see where Rosalind said she sympathized with terrorists, she and like the rest of us, question this EO and much of the questionable UNCONSTITUTIONAL provisions contained within. Painting everyone with such a broad stroke of a brush and labeling them as terrorist sympathizer because they do not embrace the BS coming from our federal govt all in the name of the war on terror, is quite troubling.
-------------- *SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS / MOLON LABE / Se Defendendo memoria of cado frater ,Semper fidelis *The object of war is NOT to DIE for YOUR Country, but to make the OTHER BASTARD DIE for HIS....Patton *Ut subsequens vires of Iugum , exsisto optimus si obama intereo ex a pectus pectoris tentatio
Grinning Dragon, this is from an article Chris Hedges wrote today. They had court on Thursday for the lawsuit against NDAA. One of the plaintiffs in our lawsuit, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, an Icelandic parliamentarian who has advocated transparency laws that would clear the way for WikiLeaks to operate in Iceland and helped produce a video about the 2007 Baghdad airstrike that killed two journalists and nine other civilians, did not appear in court.
In January 2011 Jónsdóttir, although she is not a U.S. citizen, was served by the United States Department of Justice with a subpoena demanding information “about all [her] tweets and more since November 1st 2009.” The demanded information, which she has refused to provide, includes all mailing addresses and billing information, all connection records and session times, all IP addresses used to access Twitter, and all known email accounts, as well as the “means and source of payment,” including banking records and credit cards. The Justice Department subpoenaed records for the period from Nov. 1, 2009, to the present. The foreign minister of Iceland advised Jónsdóttir not to travel to the United States for the court hearing on Thursday, fearing she might be detained, especially after the Justice Department refused to issue a statement in writing stating that she would not be held if she appeared on American soil.
This next part is exchanges between the judge and government attorney on Thursday: “Are you telling me that no U.S. citizen can be detained under 1021?” Forest asked.
“That’s not a reasonable fear,” the government lawyer said.
Advertisement “Say it’s reasonable to fear you will be unlucky [and face] detention, trial. What does ‘directly supported’ mean?” she asked.
“We have not said anything about that …” Torrance answered.
“What do you think it means?” the judge asked. “Give me an example that distinguishes between direct and indirect support. Give me a single example.”?
“We have not come to a position on that,” he said.
“So assume you are a U.S. citizen trying not to run afoul of this law. What does it [the phrase] mean to you?” the judge said.
“I couldn’t offer any specific language,” Torrance answered. “I don’t have a specific example.”
Here's an article about the NSA spy center one of my previous videos was talking about. I started to copy and paste some of the info in here, but there's just WAY too much important information in it, and it's a very long article.
If Its Criminal, all people in the United States should be allowed Due Process.. Due Process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due Process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it.
OMG, now you're cracking me up!! 
