Posted on 11/27/2011 7:22:36 AM PST by DManA
Can you say Posse Coma Tata ??? Using the US Military against US citizens within the US is a No NO .
Can you say Posse Coma Tata ??? Using the US Military against US citizens within the US is a No NO .
Can you say Posse Coma Tata ??? Using the US Military against US citizens within the US is a No NO .
Bump for later.
Hard to imagine the ACLU objecting to any power given to Obama.
“Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”
Well, Kel, when ya’ right ya’ right...
The elite establishment of both parties see that the people are no longer going to take their tyranny, so they seek to turn the military on the people.
This isn’t new. Questionaires have been administered to rank and file military in the recent past, to determine if they have been sufficiently mind numbed to ignore the constitution and blindly follow unlawful orders.
They did it at Waco.
>> “However, if this law empowers our military to take action against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil then I believe the Posse Comitatus Act will have to be amended or even rescinded” <<
.
After Obamacare, and Waco, do you see any obstacles thereto?
>> “For some reason, I sort of have trouble taking this article seriously” <<
.
After Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Murrah building, I don’t.
Did you read the other 632 pages?
How much of Obamacare have you read?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
I searched for the word ‘arrest’ and mostly it seemed to do with making arrests related to the protection of federal government property or buildings.
What assholes authored this bill?
page 362
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
But, notwithstanding the obligation, it appears to be authorized...or does it?
One section appears to authorize, the other appears to say it is not required. Artful draftsmanship to authorize tyranny but not mandate it.
I read the pertinent sections of the Senate Bill when I first heard about this being voted on. I was suspicious since it was the ACLU posting the warning. I read and re-read sections 1031 and 1032 and sadly I was not sure if military detention/rendition applied to U.S. Citizens or not. Makes you wonder how Congress can vote on these bills when they are so cryptically written or maybe that is exactly the point. If the wording is unclear that makes it open to interpretation. In any event, reading the darn thing did make me feel even less safe than I did before.
“After Obamacare, and Waco, do you see any obstacles thereto?”
Yeah, and don’t forget Ruby Ridge. But I get your point. Consequently, it’s imperative that Obama is a one term president.
Why not make it clear and state it in language that is unambiguous and so that everyone can understand it?
It would be interesting to know which person with a beating heart sat down at a desk and started to write this out as a first draft. Were they in the Bush Administration? The Obama Administration? The military legal department? A Senator’s or Representative’s office? How about a lobbiest?
Who is responsible and who owns this piece of verbiage?
I would like to know how many office holders who will vote on this have read this bill?
I may send the language of sections 1031 and 1032 to my rep to see what he says.
Tuy nhiên Ä‘iá»u há» là m được là những bức hình trông thì giống nhÆ°ng hoà n toà n
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.