Author Topic: The USA is gone  (Read 5780 times)



It's the military budget for a new year.

It's really godawful cheap, right? I think I saw that.


the point im trying to make is youre an internet nerd with no life that no one cares about

User was banned for this post

I'm getting tired of those "His party did that" excuse, lobbying, corporation control, mob rule, media brainwashing, and leftwing - Rightwing bullstuff. If people are going to complain we could atleast try to work together to fix our problems and prevent this stuff from happening in the first place.

Hear my words, no politcal party is going to come out the ashes to fix our problems, only to asert there own interests. The longer we let lobbying and parties dominate the government, the more we loose our rights as people and we become more like cattle. Remember this government was formed by colonists who were fed up with the Englands harsh taxes and laws.

Still don't agree with me? Remember this quote? "Beware politcal parties and foreign affairs." - George Washington, Fairwell Address. Think he was kidding when he said that? Look at some of the recent wars we faught in and how parties have influenced history.

I'm getting tired of those "His party did that" excuse, lobbying, corporation control, mob rule, media brainwashing, and leftwing - Rightwing bullstuff. If people are going to complain we could atleast try to work together to fix our problems and prevent this stuff from happening in the first place.

Hear my words, no politcal party is going to come out the ashes to fix our problems, only to asert there own interests. The longer we let lobbying and parties dominate the government, the more we loose our rights as people and we become more like cattle. Remember this government was formed by colonists who were fed up with the Englands harsh taxes and laws.

Still don't agree with me? Remember this quote? "Beware politcal parties and foreign affairs." - George Washington, Fairwell Address. Think he was kidding when he said that? Look at some of the recent wars we faught in and how parties have influenced history.
Don't forget also that he said to stay the forget away from bipartisan governments.

Hint:  Bipartisan = two parties.  Democrats + Republicans = bipartisan.

Alright I finally found it.
Quote
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) 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).

Quote
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.



So what I've understood from this is that unless you're a terrorist you should be fine, and mind you the president has to to be the one to do this, not just any military officer, so you can't just be arrested by any military official.

It also states that this does not extend to US citizens.

at one point in paragraph 3 section 1032 it says "no transfer otherwise described in paragraph 4  (The secretary of Defense may with the Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence can waive the requirements of paragraph 1 if it is in best interest of the security of the United States.) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033."

The requirements in section 1033 are.

Quote
(a) Certification Required Prior to Transfer-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.
(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate--
(A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or
(B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.

Quote
(d) National Security Waiver-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability to a detainee transfer of a certification requirement specified in paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) or the prohibition in subsection (c) if the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, determines that--
(A) alternative actions will be taken to address the underlying purpose of the requirement or requirements to be waived;
(B) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated, but the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate such risks with regard to the individual to be transferred;
(C) in the case of a waiver of subsection (c), the Secretary has considered any confirmed case in which an individual who was transferred to the country subsequently engaged in terrorist activity, and the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate the risk of recidivism with regard to the individual to be transferred; and
(D) the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.

(2) REPORTS- Whenever the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual concerned, the following:
(A) A copy of the determination and the waiver concerned.
(B) A statement of the basis for the determination, including--
(i) an explanation why the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States; and
(ii) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), an explanation why it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated.
(C) A summary of the alternative actions to be taken to address the underlying purpose of, and to mitigate the risks addressed in, the paragraph or subsection to be waived
.

Subsection D here says that it has to be explained why it's in the best interest of the security of the united states for the waiver to be used.


Quote
(b) Certification- A certification described in this subsection is a written certification made by the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, that the government of the foreign country or the recognized leadership of the foreign entity to which the individual detained at Guantanamo is to be transferred--
(1) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a designated foreign terrorist organization;
(2) maintains control over each detention facility in which the individual is to be detained if the individual is to be housed in a detention facility;
(3) is not, as of the date of the certification, facing a threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to exercise control over the individual;
(4) has taken or agreed to take effective actions to ensure that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United States, its citizens, or its allies in the future;
(5) has taken or agreed to take such actions as the Secretary of Defense determines are necessary to ensure that the individual cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist activity; and
(6) has agreed to share with the United States any information that--
(A) is related to the individual or any associates of the individual; and
(B) could affect the security of the United States, its citizens, or its allies.


Subsection B talks about foreign countries and being transferred back to them, it says that the country of origin must be able to control the person and give any information that is related to the individual or any associate of the individual if it could affect the security of the United States.



TL;DR
If you're not a US citizen then you do have a right to be worried, however as long as you're not a terrorist then you should be fine.




Also if you find that I was wrong on any part of this, here's the bill and the sections that it's located in, please feel free to point out where I went wrong, as I'm not trying to start an argument and would love to be told what I did wrong.
 (This sounds sarcastic but in all honesty it's not, though I would rather not be proved wrong as what I said sounds fair enough.  I really just wanted to clear things up.)

If you're not a US citizen then you do have a right to be worried, however as long as you're not a terrorist then you should be fine.

how about HR 3166 and S. 1698?

There dosnt seem to be a movement against it. another forgotten bill for dumb Americans to not pay attention to?
I wont even tell you what it is, il let you look it up and feel stupid.


im starting to think sopa was just a decoy to keep you people occupied.
the patriot act already (basically) has these powers, though its not specific enough and can be taken to the supreme court to easily. this would clear things up.

those of you who cannot ever imagine the government initiating martial law upon us all and arresting half of us live in some dream land. its very likely and looking like an intended plan.

you probably dont know that obamacare has a MANDATE for RFID chip implants.
you see all these things are different pieces coming together.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 08:40:47 PM by Bisjac »

Yeah Obama signed it in. I used to support him, even somewhat through our bullstuff involvement with the Ghadaffi stuff, but I guess I should have listened to those extremist republicans who claimed him to be the next fascist dictator.
http://www.cnn.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/

er

It's not the 13 trillion $ of external debt or the fact that at any moment China could pretty take everything you own that makes you think america is gone?

im starting to think sopa was just a decoy to keep you people occupied.
i was thinking this too. they all took the bait as well. i know almost nothing about what's going on, so i'm just going to improvise what i think. it doesn't make sense to spring a trap that isn't even finished yet. the sopa and piper bill or whatever keeps noobs distracted thinking their youtube and facebook are going to be gone while they pass a bunch of other stuff unnoticed because of the stir this bill created.
they know that this sopa crap isn't going to make it through with all the opposition.
they aren't dropping this bill because of the publicity it created. everyone's charging towards the enemy in front of them, pushing forward, only to then get shot in the back, too late to react.

perfect decoy 10/10 STOP CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET


I expect civil war if sopa,pipa passes.

NDAA is signed every year.  There are certain provisions in the 2012 one that include police state stuff. 



Just clarifying.