TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US president orders military to begin jailing all civilian protestors to war
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

US president orders military to begin jailing all civilian protestors to war

quote:

US president orders military to begin jailing all civilian protestors to war In yet another shocking prelude towards becoming a Total Police State, Russian Intelligence Analysts are reporting today that the American War Leaders have issued orders to the United States Military Northern Command authorizing the jailing, and military tribunals, for any American citizen critical of the 'war effort'. These reports state that the American President has 'lost his confidence' in the American Judicial System and has further ordered his War Cabinet to begin attacking civilian judges, and as we can read as confirmed by the MSNBC News Service in their article titled "Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on terror policy", and which says: "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases. "We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments," Gonzales says in the prepared speech. "That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country." The American War Leaders have further launched attacks against their own civilian judiciary from the Pentagon, and as we can read as reported by the Jurist Legal Research and News Service in their report titled "US law deans 'appalled' by Stimson criticism of law firms for representing detainees", and which says: "More than 130 deans of US law schools signed a statement released Monday expressing their dismay at comments made last week by DOD Deputy Assistant Secretary for Detainee Affairs Charles "Cully" Stimson in a radio interview critizing top US law firms for providing pro bono representation to Guantanamo detainees. "We," the deans wrote, are appalled by the January 11, 2007 statement of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles "Cully" Stimson, criticizing law firms for their pro bono representation of suspected terrorist detainees and encouraging corporate executives to force these law firms to choose between their pro bono and paying clients." Furthering the complete destruction of the rights of the American people to 'due process' and 'fair trials', the American War Leaders have passed a new law subjecting their citizens to Military, instead of Civilian trials. According to reports from the United States, this little known law was 'slipped into' a large spending bill unbeknownst to US Congressional Leaders, and though 'seemingly' applying to American contractors in fact subjects all American citizens to Military Arrest and Trials. The most destructive of these 'new' laws 'slipped into' much larger legislation, and bypassing the notice of US Lawmakers, has overturned over 200 years of American procedures for appointing US Federal Prosecutors, and who are, according the American Constitution, charged with being 'politically neutral' so as to afford the citizens of the United States protection against prosecution by a vengeful government, and as we can read as reported by the Associated Press News Service in their article titled "2 U.S. Attorneys in Calif. quit, critics say Bush forced them out", and which says: "Two U.S. Attorneys in California announced they are stepping down, as critics alleged political pressure from the Bush administration was pushing them and others out of their jobs. Kevin Ryan, chief federal prosecutor for the state's Northern District, and Carol Lam, who headed the state's Southern District, both announced Tuesday they would be leaving their positions. The two are among 11 top federal prosecutors who have resigned or announced their resignations since an obscure provision in the USA Patriot Act reauthorization last year enabled the U.S. attorney general to appoint replacements without Senate confirmation." Russian Legal Analysts familiar with American Law state in these reports that the significance of these actions being taking against American citizens by the US War Leaders shows the 'complete ascendancy' to 'total power' of the American President, and who now is free to rule his Nation by decree free from interference by either the US Congress, or the American people themselves. So powerless have the US Congress and American people become, that as outrage continues to build within the United States against the expansion of the war in Iraq, and the planned US attack upon Iran, the spokesman for the American War Leader has stated in response to a US Congressional move to block further war making: "Presidential spokesman Tony Snow said resolutions passed by Congress will not affect Bush's decision-making. "The president has obligations as a commander in chief," he said. "And he will go ahead and execute them." Russian Intelligence Analysts in these reports to President Putin have asked, "If President Bush feels that he is not constrained by either the elected representatives of the American people, or the American people themselves, we must then consider that he, and his Administration, have become powers unto themselves and that the United States should therefore be considered a dictatorship, not a democracy." To the American people themselves, they remain in abject denial of the dark Fascist forces descending around them; but soon, and much sooner than they could believe, and with their families and neighbors disappearing into the vast American Gulag, what they once believed in as the American Dream, will soon be shown for what it really is, an American Nightmare. By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western subscribers

US president orders military to begin jailing all civilian protestors to war

I'm itching to reply, but I am going to wait until the Republicans, neo-cons and their friends do so first. I want to see the denial, backed by some solid information.

Re: US president orders military to begin jailing all civilian protestors to war

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller US president orders military to begin jailing all civilian protestors to war

I think I missed something in this story here. I don't deny each point that was made, and I have equal resentment towards those points outlined. However, not one of those points made seemingly fits this headline very well:

quote:

US president orders military to begin jailing all civilian protestors to war

Where exactly does this explicitly state this in any way in the story? Otherwise it would appear almost as a non sequitur argument made - the conclusion of jailing civilian protestors doesn't seem to fit any premises made in the article. The closest I seem to see any possible fit is here:

quote:

Furthering the complete destruction of the rights of the American people to 'due process' and 'fair trials', the American War Leaders have passed a new law subjecting their citizens to Military, instead of Civilian trials. According to reports from the United States, this little known law was 'slipped into' a large spending bill unbeknownst to US Congressional Leaders, and though 'seemingly' applying to American contractors in fact subjects all American citizens to Military Arrest and Trials.

However, that's not necessarily jailing any dissenters, per se. Rather, that's treating the contractors in the same manner as those in the military. While this is good on the one hand considering that a healthy handful of contractors have gotten off scotch free for their role in torture for detainees at Gitmo, Iraq, and elsewhere, the consequences are also easy to spell out. However, that's hardly stating those contractors were "dissenters" of any sort.

HOWEVER, this bill could also wrap around an unknown group of citizens that this Administration may deem as "dissenters" - namely, reporters:

quote:

But legal observers say it could be interpreted broadly to include employees with other government agencies, as well as reporters. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4472421.html

That's pretty significant, but again I think that should be mentioned in the article posted more clearly if that was the inherent point they were attempting to make.

Russian Intelligence saying the president orders the US military to arrest people at home?

These Russians should learn a little more about how the military works in this country, and that there would have to be radical LEGISLATIVE changes made to allow the military to arrest anyone inside the USA. Policing by the military is expressly prohibited by law.


MrS

I saw one of the Alex Jones' videos where peaceful protesters were arrested on streets and sent in to detention camps for 24 hours with no access to lawyers and no cause. The cameraman ended up with these people. All you see is people around sitting downn on the ground, and agents walking around ... Yeah, very freaky.

I have all his videos, I think that one is called Gulag USA.

Sounded like crap to me.

source first story second

This is the most relevant thing I could find:

quote:

Congress to Send Critics to Jail, Says Richard Viguerie Congress Wants to Blame the Grassroots for Its Own Corruption MANASSAS, Va., Jan. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, regarding legislation currently being considered by Congress to regulate grassroots communications: "In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but isn't, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress. "Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself. "The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers. "On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.' "That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Senator Vitter, however, is now a co-sponsor of Amendment 20 by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to remove Section 220 from the bill. Unless Amendment 20 succeeds, the Senate will have criminalized the exercise of First Amendment rights. We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy. "I started GrassrootsFreedom.com to fight efforts to silence the grassroots. The website provides updates in the legislation and has a petition to sign opposing Section 220. "Thousands of nonprofit leaders, bloggers, and other citizens have hammered the Senate with calls in opposition to Section 220, which seeks to silence the grassroots. The criminal provisions will scare citizens into silence. "The legislation regulates small, legitimate nonprofits, bloggers, and individuals, but creates loopholes for corporations, unions, and large membership organizations that would be able to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars, yet not report. "Congress is trying to blame the grassroots, which are American citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights, for Washington's internal corruption problems." CONTACT: Mark Fitzgibbons, +1-703-392-7676 or +1-703-408-3775, for GrassrootsFreedom.com.The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, regarding legislation currently being considered by Congress to regulate grassroots communications: "In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but isn't, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress. "Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself. "The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers. "On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.' "That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Senator Vitter, however, is now a co-sponsor of Amendment 20 by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to remove Section 220 from the bill. Unless Amendment 20 succeeds, the Senate will have criminalized the exercise of First Amendment rights. We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy. "I started GrassrootsFreedom.com to fight efforts to silence the grassroots. The website provides updates in the legislation and has a petition to sign opposing Section 220. "Thousands of nonprofit leaders, bloggers, and other citizens have hammered the Senate with calls in opposition to Section 220, which seeks to silence the grassroots. The criminal provisions will scare citizens into silence. "The legislation regulates small, legitimate nonprofits, bloggers, and individuals, but creates loopholes for corporations, unions, and large membership organizations that would be able to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars, yet not report. "Congress is trying to blame the grassroots, which are American citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights, for Washington's internal corruption problems." CONTACT: Mark Fitzgibbons, +1-703-392-7676 or +1-703-408-3775, for GrassrootsFreedom.com. SOURCE GrassrootsFreedom.com

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/s...+2007,+06:34+PM

http://www.drudge.com/news/89278/se...report-congress

http://www.google.com/search? q=req...%20itself&hl=en

quote:

US terror trials to allow hearsay The US defence department has released new rules allowing terror suspects to be convicted and possibly executed on the basis of hearsay evidence and some coerced testimony. The rules, which the department says are "fair", are contained in a manual to be used for upcoming trials of terrorism suspects. At a Pentagon briefing, Dan Dell'Orto, the deputy to the defence department's top counsel, said the new rules will "afford all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised people". But the 238-page manual could spark a fresh confrontation between the Bush administration and the Democratic-led Congress over the treatment of terror suspects. Classified information The manual states that the defence must notify the judge if it expects to disclose classified information, allowing the government to object to any questioning of witnesses. But the suspect would not be allowed to see any classified material used against them, and receive only an unclassified summary. "When you're in the middle of a war against this enemy, you need to be particularly concerned about the disclosure of that evidence", Dell'Orto said of classified materials. The manual prohibits the use of statements obtained through torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as prohibited by the US Constitution. But it allows some evidence obtained through coercive interrogation techniques if obtained before December 30, 2005, and deemed reliable by a judge. Congress and the White House also agreed last year that hearsay - evidence based on what is reported to a witness by others rather than on what they have observed for themselves - can be allowed as evidence if a judge rules the testimony reliable. Death penalty The manual states: "As a general matter, hearsay shall be admitted on the same terms as any evidence." Dell'Orto said that since both sides of the case can admit hearsay evidence, that "levels the playing field". In outlining the maximum punishment for various acts, the new manual includes the death penalty for people convicted of spying or taking part in a "conspiracy or joint enterprise" that kills someone. The maximum penalty for aiding the enemy - such as providing ammunition or money - is life imprisonment. There are almost 400 people being held at the military's prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Thomas Hemingway, a legal adviser to the Pentagon's office on commissions, said US officials think that with the evidence they have now, they could eventually charge 60 to 80 detainees. The defence department is currently planning trials for at least 10.

US terror trials to allow hearsay

And after that, they call it Democracy. I simply outraged!

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller And after that, they call it Democracy. I simply outraged!

It isnt a direct democratic nation, the USA has an always has been one of the oldest constitutional republics which is a completely different thing, a Constitutional Republic runs on the rule of law which restricts their behaviour in between the times that voting is allowed, Direct Democracies run on collective decisions.
To some degree in a constitutional republic you can enact some direct democracy via a referenda.

I mean what the hell are they teaching you kids in bloody school these days? How to use a TV guide and a remote control for education?

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith It isnt a direct democratic nation, the USA has an always has been one of the oldest constitutional republics which is a completely different thing, a Constitutional Republic runs on the rule of law which restricts their behaviour in between the times that voting is allowed, Direct Democracies run on collective decisions. To some degree in a constitutional republic you can enact some direct democracy via a referenda. I mean what the hell are they teaching you kids in bloody school these days?

star-traveller apparently follows the word of the almighty Putin above all else, where Democracy is a loosely defined concept (at best).

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith It isnt a direct democratic nation, the USA has an always has been one of the oldest constitutional republics which is a completely different thing, a Constitutional Republic runs on the rule of law which restricts their behaviour in between the times that voting is allowed, Direct Democracies run on collective decisions. To some degree in a constitutional republic you can enact some direct democracy via a referenda. I mean what the hell are they teaching you kids in bloody school these days?

Have you ever read the American Constitution? That to me sounds like a democracy, while the "backroom laws" are doing otherwise.

Republic is something like the Roman Republic, the first of the Republic kind it was. French Republic. But that's not quote democracy. Don't fall for the silly name, my friend. Remember Eastern German Democratic Republic or whatever it was called of East Germany - it was neither a republic nor a democracy. "The Democratic Republic Of Congo" is another example.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Have you ever read the American Constitution?

When I applied for citizenship there a fair few years ago, but yes it is a democracy, but it is not a pure democracy where things can be changed with popular consensus of the voting and parlimentary population.
Essentially, they vote in the least likely to break the country for 4 years and after that they rely completely on their representatives for any change to be made to laws and so forth via a referenda. That is why the US citizens have to obey their limited free speech laws because government is enabled to enforce those laws within the boundaries set completely legally.

This doesnt mean its a good thing or even a very remotely humanitarian thing, but it is the law.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith It isnt a direct democratic nation, the USA has an always has been one of the oldest constitutional republics which is a completely different thing, a Constitutional Republic runs on the rule of law which restricts their behaviour in between the times that voting is allowed, Direct Democracies run on collective decisions. To some degree in a constitutional republic you can enact some direct democracy via a referenda. I mean what the hell are they teaching you kids in bloody school these days? How to use a TV guide and a remote control for education?

I have no clue why you said that, but:

quote:

First 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution (aka Bill of Rights) First Amendment � Freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.



Which tend to be punted around rather losely lately by the administration.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I have no clue why you said that, but:

You know me well enough by now I don't start swinging unless I can back it up.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith You know me well enough by now I don't start swinging unless I can back it up.

But you do seem to start swinging for no aparent reason at times .

I'm using the ladies 1st amendment of being able to flip out and whack on something as my perogative see's fit at that particular moment in time!

(Its not a written law by the way, just kind of like the law of nature or something... )

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. Which tend to be punted around rather losely lately by the administration.

Yeah, but their policies and actions have nothing to do with eigther one of those, and you know that too. How exactly is ripping the constution to shreds, which the President in his/her inauguration is obligated to swears an oath to protect, help our national sercurity? That's really mind boggling, keeping in mind the propaganda in mind about the motives of the terrorists. You know, the whole "They attacked us because we're the brightest beacon of freedom and they hate freedom," while the current administration ensuring the turn this country and everything it's supposed to stand for upside down.

quote:

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

EDIT: Oh, just saw your response .

Yep, 'interpretations' of constitutions are funny things arent they, it has had its moments but mostly you just get some slimey, selfish bastard that grabs same said consitution and while they don't 'rip' it to pieces so to speak, they do twist the wording around to suit themselves.

This munchkins, is why you pick your poison in office very carefully or they will come back and bite you and probably be legally able to do so...

Course, constititions have their 'fun' things too, like firearms ownership which was written back in the days of blackpowder and ball, being sort of twisted around to owning something that is technically the same 'weapon' but instead of a range of 50metres, it can blow the weeny off a bee at 700metres

Something presidents of constitutions shoule be wary of...

Well, fortunately, you cant have a 100% democracy, because you need law and order. People need to know their limitations and limits are imposed as to maintain the society. Otherwise people would be going around doing anything they want and the law will be powerless to stop it. Makes a bit sense?

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Course, constititions have their 'fun' things too, like firearms ownership which was written back in the days of blackpowder and ball, being sort of twisted around to owning something that is technically the same 'weapon' but instead of a range of 50metres, it can blow the weeny off a bee at 700metres

They also drop off the " well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," first line of Amendment II.

At a time when there was not a standing army heavily funded by the taxpayers, and imminent threat of invasion, the well established militia was the basis of the national security at the time.

Some will argue that a militia is just as important now, though those people are usually only willing to fight in the hypothetical situation that has the government sending its armed forces to wage war on the populace at home. Most of them are unwilling to join the military and fight to uphold the freedoms of others as well as themselves.

MrS

Does the US still maintain some sort of 'Well regulated militia' independantly organised defence forces in a sense or has that been more or less rolled in with the local reservist type forces? (National Guard I think theyre called) It's been quite awhile since I spoke to any of the US gun-nuts.
On principle of personal security I've owned firearms all my life except when I lived in England for awhile and was little, even then there where shotguns and stuff about the farm. Still do own a couple, if I was in the US I'd probably be consider being self-armed a practical part of life.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Some will argue that a militia is just as important now, though those people are usually only willing to fight in the hypothetical situation that has the government sending its armed forces to wage war on the populace at home. Most of them are unwilling to join the military and fight to uphold the freedoms of others as well as themselves. MrS

Put more simply, to maintain a free state and prevent it from becoming a totalitarian one, or a tyranny. That's been happening in small increments for a while now, as it always does, or not so small increments ever since this administration came to power. The saddest part is the ignorance, apathy, and denial that's prevelant today. IMO, we're probably screwed in most likelyhood .

'Probably'

Thats a bit generous
I would have said the US population has been taking it in the [woohoo] so long you've learned to like it.


Damn I'm crude... sorry

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith 'Probably' Thats a bit generous I would have said the US population has been taking it in the [woohoo] so long you've learned to like it. Damn I'm crude... sorry

No need to apologize, it's only honest and unfortunately quite accurate .

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.