A nightmare coming true?

[Slinger]

Are we in for some hard times or what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

Notice that it does include American citizens.

Now, how hard will it be for them, under this Bill, to label whom they wish as "threats", to be promptly shipped off to a "military detention center".

Of course, they already do such stuff, but now its legal!

CBS Legal expert Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted".

Bullshit!

[nbk2000]

"it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted".

Perhaps he was telling the truth.

He said 'already have been'. That could mean that the laws to do this to Americans born here have already been (secretly) passed, just not yet implemented. :eek:

[BeerWolf]

Habeas corpus has been suspended before.

Just off the top of my head:
Washington (Whiskey Rebellion)
Lincoln(Civil War)
Wilson (WW1)
FDR (WW2)

[sparkchaser]

(frmr) Senator McCarthy would be proud, and thousands of Japanese Americans that lived through the American WWII concentration camps are probably rolling in their graves. You'd think people would learn from history by now.

[akinrog]

I watched a documentary on discovery regarding end of our solar system.

The scientiests was mentioning about how we shall adapt ourselves to a inflating sun (turning red). He was saying when you boil a container in which there is frog, very very slowly, the frog do not understand he was being boiled.

Many members here are waiting for the crack down but actually the crack down is already abound with small infinitesimal steps though.

Instead of boiling the container on high heat, they are boiling us very slowly in order not to draw our attention that we are being boiled.

Every step taken by the politicians (of any country) takes us a few inch to New World Order and when our children wake up in a morning, we shall find ourselves living in a global police state where only the rich can get privilages. Regards.

[pangos_59]

Until V comes around that is!

[the_twitchy1]

Well, I live in the northern 'wastes', so I take care of my little section of the world. By doing so, I ensure that this little corner of the world is the best, most secure, most free section of the world that it can be. Now, that being said... I protect my freedoms the best way I can; I vote every chance I get, and I take care of my family. I don't hole up and 'go militia' simply because it won't help... You think you can fight off the whole of the NATO armed forces? I don't.

That being said, it's not _my_ government that is stealing freedoms one by one. I'm a Canadian, and so far our government has been pretty ambivalent about your whole "war". We'll keep our freedom and liked status and keep our damned noses out of other peoples business... Oh, and clean up the messes our neighbours leave behind. (How much do you hear about Afganistan? Not much, since your govn' moved on, leaving the peacekeepers with all the trouble...)

Sorry, but as a Canuck, it bothers me that you guys have such a shitty government because in the end, fallout and violence doesn't stay in certain borders... and I hate being at the whim of a government that I can't even change.

[nbk2000]

Such is the fate of little brother to the north when Big Brother to the south decides to flex his muscles. :p

Of course, there's not much to worry about in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Snow, asides from whether or not the beer is cold, and if the ice is thick enough for hockey, eh? ;)

[Cobalt.45]

and I hate being at the whim of a government that I can't even change.

At least there's the correct assumption of who's alpha.:p

Here's the plan: Move to Vermont, declare US citizenship, then cast that all important vote for the right party.

Having then cast out the evil and installed the good into power, haul ass back to the GWN!:D

[the_twitchy1]

Such is the fate of little brother to the north when Big Brother to the south decides to flex his muscles. :p

Of course, there's not much to worry about in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Snow, asides from whether or not the beer is cold, and if the ice is thick enough for hockey, eh? ;)

Yeah, but keep up with your non-kyoto ways and all our rinks will be pools... Then you'll be begging to join us in our balmy climate! :)

On a serious note, though, that's the reason the US is hated the world over. Your government does indeed think that it can have an impact globally, but never bothers asking anyone else on the planet what they should be doing. It's not jealosy or 'hating the big guys', it's fear of unilateralism. Think about it; when the US was trying to build support the world over during the cold war, they were liked by most of their allies. During and after WWII, same thing. Even after Desert Storm, you guys were pretty cool. But now? Everyone in the world hates you because your Government doesn't ask first.

Seems to me that they've just gotten so used to the 'shot first, ask questions later' mentality that its coming home, too.

[Hirudinea]

Yeah, but keep up with your non-kyoto ways and all our rinks will be pools... Then you'll be begging to join us in our balmy climate!

Look on the bright side, in 20 years when water costs more than oil, we, with the largest water reserves in the world will be bending the yankees over a water barrel and drilling them up the wazoo! :D

We'll keep our freedom and liked status and keep our damned noses out of other peoples business...

Yea, wonderful stragety, everyone likes pussy so be a pussy and everyone will like you.

(How much do you hear about Afganistan? Not much, since your govn' moved on, leaving the peacekeepers with all the trouble...)


Well we still have to rely on the U.S. for things like helicopters, air cover, air lift, etc, because of 40 years of treating our soilders like social workers in khaki! (Well actually bus driver green, but thats besides the point.)

and I hate being at the whim of a government that I can't even change.

I've felt that during the entire Chretien/Martian regime.

[the_twitchy1]

I don't know... I wouldn't call 'asking the world to support you before you go stomping your big jack boots all over everyone else' being a pussy. Although I do agree with you in that we still have to depend on the US for a lot of military supplies and logistics. It's because of the way we treated our military that we're trapped into being part of the American Security Conglomerate...

And, to be honest I never voted for the Grits, either. I usually vote locally, and locally the best man was always wearing NDP orange, so those bastards were never my bastards. But that's besides the point, and off topic as well.

[DyeVad]

The act does apply to us citizens. He can declare any person a enemy combatant, send them to a detention center they have build on FEMA land outside of major us cities, torcher them and have it useable in the military tribunal court, sentence that person to death, and only have to make a report to a few people in the house and senate once a year on dec 31. If you don’t believe me, read the act. If you still don’t believe me I can link you to the act to read. If you still don’t believe me I can get out the crayons.

[Chris The Great]

Voting doesn't do anything more than change the label on the same government. It merely gives the illusion of being in control of the government.

The problem is two fold, the first is that voting out one corrupt party out to gain more power and voting in a different corrupt party out to gain power doesn't do jack-all, and the second is that there are far more sheeple than there are intelligent people.

And third, the military is poised for a takeover anyway so it really won't matter who gets voted in at all.


Canada doesn't have the patriot act, but we don't really need it since our population is essentially disarmed and so considered harmless towards our government. If Canada's population had some actual weaponry, then we'd probably be seeing a lot more police-state laws.

[nbk2000]

DyeVad, torcher is not a word, but torture is. You look rather silly when you mess up such a critical word in a rant.

And I think we'd all like to see source citations on your statements, as you offered to do. :)

[megalomania]

What exactly constitutes terrorism was never really defined under US law until the Patriot Act came along. Technically the PatriRat Act formally allows terrorism to include the breaking of ANY law if the intent was to cause a terrorist disruption (exactly what defines that I am not sure). The act also allows a terrorist act to be punished by death. Therefore, in theory one could be put to death for jaywalking if you were somehow able to jaywalk for purposes of terrorism (I have thought about how one could do that, but I am stumped).

Since all law is a matter of interpretation depending on who happens to be the judge, I would expect more and more criminals to be defined as terrorists. Drug dealers become drug terrorists, pedophiles become child terrorists, rapists become sex terrorists, and bank robbers and embezzlers become economic terrorists. By stock in coal now because the fedgovs furnaces will be running day and night with all the executions to be performed. Humans are a renewable resource…

[c.Tech]

in theory one could be put to death for jaywalking if you were somehow able to jaywalk for purposes of terrorism (I have thought about how one could do that, but I am stumped).
Until law enforcing officers have the power to arrest and enough evidence to convict you under a morphed term 'reasonable suspicion'

"We have reasonable suspicion he was jaywalking to get to the shop before it closed so he could buy acetone and hydrogen peroxide" – jaywalking to commit a terrorism offence.

Since all law is a matter of interpretation depending on who happens to be the judge, I would expect more and more criminals to be defined as terrorists. Drug dealers become drug terrorists, pedophiles become child terrorists, rapists become sex terrorists, and bank robbers and embezzlers become economic terrorists.
Do you mean by changing the meaning of the word but not changing the actually word in the Act so the death penalty would still apply?

Terrorism could be defined as ‘to cause fear’ in the future, quite scary. :eek:

[Nihilist]

Since all law is a matter of interpretation depending on who happens to be the judge, I would expect more and more criminals to be defined as terrorists. Drug dealers become drug terrorists, pedophiles become child terrorists, rapists become sex terrorists, and bank robbers and embezzlers become economic terrorists. By stock in coal now because the fedgovs furnaces will be running day and night with all the executions to be performed. Humans are a renewable resource…

Sadly, they're way ahead of you...I distinctly remember reading an article about a drug dealer, I think in Florida, that was prosecuted under as a 'terrorist' or for making 'chemical weapons' or something similarly ridiculous. I can't seem to find the article now though :/.

[Alexires]

I agree with Chris.

Convincing people to vote out the current regime is a two tone folly, as

1) You won't be able to convince the majority and

2) Even if you do, you replace the puppet on the right with the puppet on the left.

What needs to happen is something a little more drastic, but that has been discussed on other threads (such as active demonstration resistance ideas).

Living in Australia, (under the ever continual threat that the JBT will come and whisk you off to a high security facility for a 14 accommodation with all expenses (yours) and meals (not yours) paid for courtesy of our resident dictator) the facade of democracy is even more transparent than it is in America and other "freedom loving" countries.

Here, we don't have the patriot act, but when "insiting terrorism" is an offense, I feel rather like my rights to free speech have been removed and sodomized in front of a crowd, yet I am the only one to feel aghast.

Sadly enough, there is little we can do (or seem willing to do). There is no point in changing things, if we don't know what to change it to.

Megalomania, have you seen Equilibrium? "for the crime of feeling you stand condemned to suffer annihilation in the city furnaces. You will be taken there immediately, and you will burn."

Ahhh, how I cannot wait for the world where simply feeling is enough to have you burned at the stake as a heretic to their uncompromising religion....

[c.Tech]

I distinctly remember reading an article about a drug dealer, I think in Florida, that was prosecuted under as a 'terrorist' or for making 'chemical weapons' or something similarly ridiculous.

IMO he was probably making hydrogen sulfide or phosgene but it could have been as simple as chlorine, and who says he had to be intentionally making this so called 'CW' rather that have it a hazardous by-product of his reaction.

What has this world coming to? *shakes head*

Alexires and Chris The Great, I agree with both of you. The only way a change can be made is lobbying the government, showing a majority wants the law to change, the media takes control of this majority through their propaganda and fear.

Even if you do, you replace the puppet on the right with the puppet on the left.

http://images.thatimagesite.com/core/328/328_image.jpg

Sorry I just had to. :p

[simply RED]

One of the very ideas of the New World Order is to end individuality and thinking in general.
In some areas of life the frog was boiled in pressurized container! Science was the first victim of NWO. In eastern Europe your individual qualities for some job in science do not have any value any more! People are selected only for who their relatives/friends are and to which polytical party they belong.

This is soon going to be a fact in the west too, if it is not already...
(I am 100% sure this is already a fact in the most corporations.)

Corruption could end the western civilization far sure than the wars.
If something do not change our children will be like middle-ages peasants.

[sparkchaser]

I just wish that we in the U.S. would get back to our original ideas of rebellion against the status quo, and support of individuality. I believe it was Thomas Jeferson who said "He who would trade freedom for safety deserves neither freedom or safety".
USE
If there is somebody within the country who is able to gain enough public support to overthrow the current government/administration, and install one that will work better (not NECESSARILY in a violent way) more power to them.
PARAGRAPH
But our liberties have been eroded to a point that a large group of people converging to do just that would be called "domestic terrorists", arrested, and (possibly) executed. If nothing else there could be a long stay at GTMO with no charge, no trial, and no way to clear your name.
BREAKS
The patriot act is just one more piece of legislation among a long string. I cringe at the prospect of suspending habeaus corpus for the duration of a war which, by it's very nature, can never end.
NBK
(edited for clarity)

[nbk2000]

...we in the U.S.


Are you in Belgium, as you say in your profile, or the US?

If you are in Belgium, then you've got no right to say 'we', when referring to America.

If you are in America, then why lie about being in Belgium?

[Hirudinea]

I don't know... I wouldn't call 'asking the world to support you before you go stomping your big jack boots all over everyone else' being a pussy.

But we don't do that, we (our goverments) simply avoid taking a stand on anything and hope we forget about it, the typical Canadian stragety has been never critize a killer in the hope he will leave you alone, and that is a pussy stragety.

Although I do agree with you in that we still have to depend on the US for a lot of military supplies and logistics. It's because of the way we treated our military that we're trapped into being part of the American Security Conglomerate...

Dosn't it always amaze you that the people who hate the Americans the most are also the ones most responsible for keeping us dependent on the Americans for security?

And, to be honest I never voted for the Grits, either. I usually vote locally, and locally the best man was always wearing NDP orange, so those bastards were never my bastards. But that's besides the point, and off topic as well.

You vote for Taliban Jack and his Commrades? Thank God this is off topic so I won't have to scream.

Canada doesn't have the patriot act, but we don't really need it since our population is essentially disarmed and so considered harmless towards our government. If Canada's population had some actual weaponry, then we'd probably be seeing a lot more police-state laws.

All the weapons in the world are irrevelent if you don't have the balls to use them.

[the_twitchy1]

I'll be honest; I like the Canadian Gun Laws. The end result is this: the idiots on the street (sheeple) feel safe and thus are nice and polite and quiet. The rest of us, however, know how to make/get weapons that equal the police in most places (why do the police need riot shotguns and ak's when the sheeple are so unarmed?) with little notice.

In other words, the sheeple are calm, and I don't have to worry about some idiot with a loaded handgun in his pocket shooting me by accident... and if I feel the need to be armed, well, I just have to be careful not to be stupid and get caught.

[Hirudinea]

I'll be honest; I like the Canadian Gun Laws. The end result is this: the idiots on the street (sheeple) feel safe and thus are nice and polite and quiet.

But nobody is safe as long as there is no penality for some gangbanger letting loose in the middle of a crowd, and thats my problem.

I don't have to worry about some idiot with a loaded handgun in his pocket shooting me by accident...

Why not? Anybody who wishes to ignore the law will do so, and they're the most likely to shoot you.

[the_twitchy1]

But nobody is safe as long as there is no penality for some gangbanger letting loose in the middle of a crowd, and thats my problem.


The less guns there are in the country, the less guns there are on the street. If you have to have a permit to own a handgun, then you are less likely to have one in your home when some gangbanger's buddies break in and rob you, which means they are less likely to have one on the street. I know, they just import them from the states, but my point is that they have to import them. There is no supply here.

Compare that to the US, where it's legal to have guns. How easy is it to get one? A lot easier than importing it illigally from another country.


Why not? Anybody who wishes to ignore the law will do so, and they're the most likely to shoot you.


Because there are less idiots with guns. Yeah, anyone who chooses to ignore the law will be more likely to shoot me than someone who wouldn't ignore that law, but the _only_ people in Canada that are able to shoot me are those that are already breaking the law. In comparison, everyone in the states is a potential shooter, even if they are much less likely than those that are potential shooters in Canada.

As the %chance of being shot = # of potential shooters * %likelihood they'll shoot you, multiplying the # of potential shooters by 100 means that even if they're 100x less likely to shoot you you are looking at the same potential to get shot. Considering that by making your whole damn country potential shooters you multiply that number by much more than 100... Well, you get the picture.

[festergrump]

If you have to have a permit to own a handgun, then you are less likely to have one in your home when some gangbanger's buddies break in and rob you, which means they are less likely to have one on the street.
Your theory can sometimes hold true but it is also flawed in the sense that criminals will have guns whether they are legal or not to law abiding citizens (you admitted this, yourself), hence the opportunity to steal one from a law-abiding citizen for a criminal is only happenstance. And having a gun is only an advantage to a criminal if you do not also have a gun.

Check out the crime rate (especially home invasions and break-ins) in Kennesaw, Georgia. There they have a city ordinance which requires all heads of households to have a firearm. The crime rate there is extremely low. Why? Because criminals don't like the idea of having their intentions met muzzle first...

Are there many shootings on the street in Kennesaw, GA? No. Why? Because guns are NOT outlawed but instead mandated, which means that anybody who does not have a criminal record can go and buy a gun while criminals have to resort to illegal means to obtain them, which is not always so easy as plunking down your cash and walking away with a firearm. Georgia is also an 'open carry' state, which means you do not require a special permit or otherwise to carry your weapon so long as it's in full view. Criminals don't like the odds of their survival there (Kennesaw) so they'll need to search elsewhere for prime victims, perhaps where there are laws in effect to ensure they are the only ones with a firearm.

If everyone had a gun there'd be at least 1/100th the gun violence there is today. Kennesaw proves this but nobody pays much attention. Perhaps crime is good for some local law enforcement's economies as much as war seems to be for the entire nation's???.... Cops don't get good toys unless they prove they've a need for them, you know. (all legality and no lethality make Johnny Law a dull boy).

Bottom line is those without guns are generally powerless against those who DO have guns. This is true no matter whether you're thinking of your personal safety on the street or your government doing really nasty things to the citizens of it's county. Like it, love it, or hate it... it's the truth.

[the_twitchy1]

You're absolutely right. I stated that totally wrong.

What I'm trying to say is that for a criminal in Kennesaw, Georgia, to get a gun, all he has to do is either find someone who is willing to sell him one or go to a persons home when he knows there is nobody there. In Victoria, BC, however, the only option to get yourself a gun is to find someone who is willing to sell you one, and as any gun has to be either stolen or imported, they are more expensive on the black market.

And, to be blunt, if a criminal is going to shoot me he's going to shoot me. If I've got a gun as well, he might get shot back, which may make him think twice... but I really don't know that it reduces the crime rate by that much.

I'll see if I can find the numbers on Canadian violent crime vs. American violent crime per capita.

[Defendu]

Post number 27 as rewritten by me:

The less [plastic junk] there [is] in the country, the less [plastic junk] there [is] on the street. If you have to have a permit to own [fragile junk], then you are less likely to have [it] in your home when some gangbanger's buddies break in and rob you, which means they are less likely to have [Britney Spears and U2 CDs] on the street. I know, they just import [it] from [China], but my point is that they have to import [it]. There is no supply here.

:D

[sparkchaser]

Are you in Belgium, as you say in your profile, or the US?

If you are in Belgium, then you've got no right to say 'we', when referring to America.

If you are in America, then why lie about being in Belgium?

Just because I'm IN Belgium doesn't mean I AM Belgian (thank god).

One of the *few* fringe benefits of being military is the ability to live overseas in someplace other than a warzone on occasion.

In regards to gun laws, handguns are, fairly recently, completely illegal in Britain and gun crime is rising.

In Belgium, carrying a handgun is illegal, but there are frequently gun fights in Brussels, especially between the Turks and Moroccans.

Just the other night, I had a friend caught in the crossfire of one such incident, and the police took 45 minutes to respond. This was in the middle of Brussels!! If the average person was legally able to carry a handgun, it may have been stopped much sooner, or may not have started at all.

[nbk2000]

Ah, so you're saying that you are an American in Belgium. I pity you. ;)

[BlackFalcoN]

Just because I'm IN Belgium doesn't mean I AM Belgian (thank god).

you are an American in Belgium. I pity you. ;)

What's so wrong with being Belgian then ? ;)
( besides the fact that we can't legally carry firearms and have a (predominantly Muslim) foreign population that's expanding at a very alarming rate)

Turks killing Moroccans, what's there not to like ? :D

Whoever emerges as the victor will be dealt with later:
'http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4763655.stm' :p

It's true that it's getting harder and harder to own a firearm legally in Belgium, since the government recently passed new laws that requires every firearm license to be granted by the provincial governor (which requires you to have a VERY GOOD reason to own a firearm).

Still, chemicals are pretty easy to purchase OTC (cyanides, white phosphorus, lots of precursors, ...) and there are about 2 million(est.) firearms in circulation among the aproximate 10 million citizens, which doesn't make it THAT hard to obtain a gun if one puts its mind to it :) )

At least we don't have to put up with a knife-ban as in the UK nor do we have a general sheeple population that sees 'terrorists threats' hiding in every sewer hole across the corner ;)

[defiant]

Section 948a (i) of the Military Commission Act defines "Enemy Combatant" as "a person who has engaged in hostilities against the United States or it co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant..."

That's a pretty broad definition. If someone were to physically resist being put in a FEMA social center (internment camp) or some sort of New Orleans/Katrina government facility they would fall under the definition of enemy combatant.

The Military Commissions Act was passed quasi publicly. What's more alarming is that behind closed doors Bush signed into law Public Law 109-364 [known also as the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2)].

Public Law 109-364 revises the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

To better understand the ramifications check out Alex Jone's "Terror Storm" at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5792753647750188322&q=terror+storm&hl=en

[sparkchaser]

Public Law 109-364 revises the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

So basically the military is able to be used in domestic capacities to arrest "terrorists", possibly lock them up under less than formal charges, and hold them for an indefinet amount of time? Can we say "birth of modern KGB"?

The fact that these laws were passed sickens me.

[Alexires]

What we really need to be asking is this....

Why?

Unless I am mistaken, Bush's time is almost up in office. By signing this legislation through, what does he gain?

Unless he is going to try and change the president's office term, it is useless to him.

Doesn't this point towards someone behind the scenes pulling the strings?

Setting this piece of legislation in place for the next president maybe....

Ahhh, how the NWO looms large on the horizon, yet all the sheeple are too busy watching each other like good little sheeple instead of watching for the wolf.

[c.Tech]

What I'm really thinking about is why everyone is thinking that there are people behind all of this trying to create a controlled society?

I'm not denying the fact that our rights are getting taken away one by one circling us into an inevitable controlled situation but is that the governments intent?

Through all the fear created by the media for our safety the overreaction could just be neutral and the result of media exaggerating ideas to sell a few more papers and the government increasing security in demands of the public (who’s views changed through the media).

What makes people so sure it is a planned take down of our freedom when I’m almost sure most politicians would oppose unrealistic law changes made in the view of safety?

[sparkchaser]

Sheeple leading sheeple, by overwhelming demand of the sheeple, and with the approval of sheeple. And little Bo Peep? She's looking awfully fluffy and white today.

[step up on soapbox]

So when do laws become unrealistic? In the days of the birth of the U.S., people were given the right to bear arms. One of the reasons for this was so that the people would be able to violently overthrow an oppressive government if an oppressive government were to come to power in the U.S.

The thought of any sort of gun control whatsoever would have been thought to be unrealistic.

The invention of the machine gun came around, and some years later the government (and the sheeple) said "Joe Blow can't buy these things for personal use, he might hurt someone!".

The trend has continued until now, when many firearms are illiegal to use or even own because somebody may be able to damage social infrastructure, or defeat protections that only the military and law enforcement have.

Wasn't that one of the many reasons that the right bear arms was granted? The ability of the people to destroy any oppressive regime that may, for some reaason, come to power?

I think the average American has become worse than complacent, we have become children that WANT Big Brother to run our lives, to protect us from the baddies, to keep the other sheeple from hurting us so that we don't have to get our hands dirty to protect what is ours.

Whatever the mechanism, the cause is the average sheeple's inability to accommodate things that may wind up hurting a person or 10 sometime down the road, or infringes on their individual belief of what's "right", regardless of the consequences to our freedoms in the long run.

AAARRRGGGHHH!:mad:

[step off of soapbox, wipe frothy spittle from mouth]

Whoops, sorry for the rant. Nicotine withdrawals are a bitch sometimes.:o

[NoltaiR]

It really hasn't been THAT long since the US offered up information relating to E&W and released them to the public. Ever heard of the Field Manuals made for the guerilla warfare back in Vietnam? Those pamphlets cover information ranging from how to repair your assault rifle to deploying homemade traps to building explosives using items found in nature.

That should be especially impressive for all of you bragging about what you can find in Wal-Mart... those books tell you how to make chemicals from the ground itself.

[Skean Dhu]

Bread and circuses.

More people voted in an American Idol call in than voted in the last presidential election. When you have the population more worried about who won the series, what hack singer got a contract, and how many pizzas they can get delivered with 5 toppings, a 2 liter of Coke and bread sticks in under a half hour or its free; than about the things that matter such as why laws protecting them were over-ruled by an executive order you can accomplish anything.

Its just like we have been pick pocketed or swindled by the man selling snake oils. By the time we realise that the valuables we once had are gone it's way too late to do anything about it.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance

[NoltaiR]

While I am trying to refrain from too many short replies, I wanted to give a 'two thumbs up' to that last post by skean dhu.. I think that is one of the best points anyone has brought up in a long time.

Around here everyone is quick to blame the goverment for their freedom or lack there of, and yet surprisingly few actually take the time to question if we as the public are really just digging our own graves...

I will now take this time to see if I can figure out how to use this 'add to your reputation' thing..

[DyeVad]

DyeVad, torcher is not a word, but torture is. You look rather silly when you mess up such a critical word in a rant.

And I think we'd all like to see source citations on your statements, as you offered to do. :)

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."


Marshal Law is already enacted in the United States:

The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the Writ of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. US Patriot Act I and II, Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the John Warner Defense Act of 2007 are now enacted as law. The power of Marshal Law is in the hands of one person, the President. I don't want that power for one person no matter who is the President. The President declares marshal law due to terrorist attack with suspicious truthy circumstances and suspends elections. Citizens of the country start protesting marshal law and suspension of elections. They are declared enemy combatants and thrown into prison under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 by the National Guard placed by the President without consent by of a state's governor legally authorized by the Warner Defense Act of 2007. Every day citizens, who haven't been imprisoned, become weary of troops on the streets randomly searching them for their passports or papers. Passports now must be carried at all times on every person throughout their day to ensure the safety of all Americans against domestic terrorism. This allows for every citizen to be tracked by little RFID chips implanted in the passports. This ensures quick tracking of any American between a cross check between the cameras on every street sign like they have in London, England to the RFID tag passports. Of course, every transaction is logged as paper money has been replaced by thumb print scanners like at Cub Foods. Your mother or your co-worker who are talking about Marshal Law they've been hearing about from people who have first hand knowledge on their cell phones or through e-mail in their everyday life are tracked by the NSA under the US Patriot Act I and II without a warrant. People are talking about arrests in the middle of the night and prison camps online and quietly around the city in places like hair salons, but see nothing of it in any newspaper or out from the mouths of any anchorperson. Protests arise from the streets through a grass roots effort online through myspace.com to end Marshal Law and remove the National Guard from street corners and for normalcy to ensue by releasing the citizens from the FEMA prisons built around major US cities. No American wants to see other Americans imprisoned for voicing their opinion about the state of the government. The President declares any person who speaks out against Marshal Law enemy combatants legally under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and jails them. Not for protesting, but simply for communicating anger about Marshal Law over the phone and in e-mail. The Internet2 is rolled out and it filters out all government conversation in all e-mail and instant messages. The Home Land Security monitoring department marks all anti-government conversation against your social security numbered file. The National Guard, like they did during Hurricane Katrina, walks in grids street by street searching everyone's private property for weapons. They take their permit legal weapons for the safety of the community, as the administration watches general anger and anguish arise from the country. People become scared to speak out for fear of being imprisoned and tortured legally by the laws pass and enacted in the United States by both houses of congress and the senate by both Democrats and Republicans in the two party system. The President notices how imprisonment rate has decreased due to this fear and restores elections as he has to keep up the image of elections for the rest of the world. People vote for anything president wants, like the Russians, by fear of jailing and with the help of the electronic voting machines that can be changed anytime the company who made them wants because there is no paper trail to stop them. There is now a one party system. There is now an amendment on the ballet to not have limits on terms of a President, removing the naturalized citizen clause as a requirement to becoming President, to remove minimum wage requirements, to remove any environmental restriction on industry and production, to remove child working age requirements, and to remove overtime pay requirements of time and half. This amendment is called Freedom Amendment. Welcome to America. War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

This is what the story is online. This is what people are hoping doesn't happen. People think wow.. this is far fetched, but it now COULD happen because it is legal to do now, as any President. Any President.. Democrat or Republican.

Sources:
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-3930
Military Commissions Act of 2006 expanded - http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511542006
Warner Defense Act of 2007 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5122
Warner Defense Act of 2007 expanded - http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
US Patriot Act - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-1389
US Patriot Act Expanded - http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php
Martial Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law#United_States_of_America
Katrina Weapon Confiscation - http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/katrina/20060419-1355-katrina-confiscatedguns.html
Finger Print Mark - http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=4436921
NSA Wiretaps - http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
Passports -http://www.carlsonwagonlit.com/en/countries/us/cwttraveler/2005_08/government/
Prison Camps -http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1062
Cameras in England - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2192911.stm
Internet restriction - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5319
RFID Passports - http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,65412,00.html
Restrictions of Freedom of Speech - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone


Military Commissions Act - Now Congress has passed the Military Commissions Act. Among other things, the Military Commissions Act will:
• Strip the US courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals challenging the lawfulness or conditions of detention of anyone held in US custody as an "enemy combatant". Judicial review of cases would be severely limited. The law would apply retroactively, and thus could result in more than 200 pending appeals filed on behalf of Guantánamo detainees being thrown out of court.
• Prohibit any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in any US court.
• Permit the executive to convene military commissions to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants", as determined by the executive under a dangerously broad definition, in trials that would provide foreign nationals so labeled with a lower standard of justice than US citizens accused of the same crimes. This would violate the prohibition on the discriminatory application of fair trial rights.
• Permit civilians captured far from any battlefield to be tried by military commission rather than civilian courts, contradicting international standards and case law.
• Establish military commissions whose impartiality, independence and competence would be in doubt, due to the overarching role that the executive, primarily the Secretary of Defense, would play in their procedures and in the appointments of military judges and military officers to sit on the commissions.
• Permit, in violation of international law, the use of evidence extracted under cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or as a result of "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating or degrading treatment", as defined under international law.
• Permit the use of classified evidence against a defendant, without the defendant necessarily being able effectively to challenge the "sources, methods or activities" by which the government acquired the evidence. This is of particular concern in light of the high level of secrecy and resort to national security arguments employed by the administration in the "war on terror", which have been widely criticized, including by the UN Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee. Amnesty International is concerned that the administration appears on occasion to have resorted to classification to prevent independent scrutiny of human rights violations.
• Give the military commissions the power to hand down death sentences, in contravention of international standards which only permit capital punishment after trials affording "all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial". The clemency authority would be the President. President Bush has led a pattern of official public commentary on the presumed guilt of the detainees, and has overseen a system that has systematically denied the rights of detainees.
• Limit the right of charged detainees to be represented by counsel of their choosing.
• Fail to provide any guarantee that trials will be conducted within a reasonable time.
• Permit the executive to determine who is an "enemy combatant" under any "competent tribunal" established by the executive, and endorse the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), the wholly inadequate administrative procedure that has been employed in Guantánamo to review individual detentions.
• Narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act by not expressly criminalizing acts that constitute "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment" banned under Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions. Amnesty International believes that the USA has routinely failed to respect the human dignity of detainees in the "war on terror".
• Prohibit the US courts from using "foreign or international law" to inform their decisions in relation to the War Crimes Act. The President has the authority to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions". Under President Bush, the USA has shown a selective disregard for the Geneva Conventions and the absolute prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment.
• Endorse the administration's "war paradigm" – under which the USA has selectively applied the laws of war and rejected international human rights law. The legislation would backdate the "war on terror" to before the 11 September 2001 in order to be able to try individuals in front of military commissions for "war crimes" committed before that date.

This is something I wrote before the election. Crazy stuff. I really hope Democrats repeal these acts.

[Altroman]

. . . At the risk of being off-topic, I offer those of you toting RFIDs who fear enslavement by Big Brother a useful tip: You can prevent "unauthorized" interrogation of any RFID-based device simply by wrapping it in aluminum foil.

The SNR at the receiver input of most RFID readers is already very poor, so an additional 60-120dB (double-pass) loss through a single layer of aluminum foil will completely quench the signal.

Note that you don't need a perfect RF seal - simply folding over the edges on a single layer of foil is sufficient, because the interrogation frequencies (125kHz, 12.7MHz) are low enough to be quenched via near-field coupling alone.

Don't believe me? Try it with your E-Z Pass transponder, or with your HID proxcard next time you report to the silo for missile duty. Hope you can sleep easier now . . . :-)

[nbk2000]

A rant on the topic of embedded RFID in tires, and their use in cross-border surveillance.

http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/2006/05/25/repost-of-anonymous-rant-most-cars-have-secret-rfids-to-allow-us-govt-to-spy/

[megalomania]

Here is a funny article on how to disable your passports RFID chip...

http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/26/how-to-disable-your-e-passports-rfid-chip/

[defiant]

Ha - it really is that simple isn't it?

[Hirudinea]

Here is a funny article on how to disable your passports RFID chip...


Ha - it really is that simple isn't it?

Actually if you think about it you could probably just flex the RFID chip in the passport back and forth with your fingers a couple dozen (hundered?) times until the wires/parts inside snap from fatigue, and fingers are free, all it would do is make your passport look wrinkled.