Black People : Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism

Discussion in 'Black People Open Forum' started by HODEE, Sep 30, 2006.

  1. HODEE

    HODEE Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,912
    Likes Received:
    613
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    (RF) Technician
    Location:
    ( Alonewolf ) California.. by way of the LOU
    Ratings:
    +795
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/290906torturebill.htm

    Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism
    Legislation tolls the bell for the day America died, birth of the dictatorship

    Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | September 29 2006

    Buried amongst the untold affronts to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the very spirit of America, the torture bill contains a definition of "wrongfully aiding the enemy" which labels all American citizens who breach their "allegiance" to President Bush and the actions of his government as terrorists subject to possible arrest, torture and conviction in front of a military tribunal.

    7:25PM CST UPDATE

    After five hours of searching through the 80-plus page bill, Alex Jones, who won the 2004 Project Censored award for his analysis of Patriot Act 2, uncovered numerous other provisions and definitions that make the bill appear as almost a mirror image of Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act.

    In section 950j. the bill criminalizes any challenge to the legislation's legality by the Supreme Court or any United States court. Alberto Gonzales has already threatened federal judges to shut up and not question Bush's authority on the torture of detainees.


    Further actions that result in the classification of an individual as a terrorist include the following.

    - Destruction of any property, which is deemed punishable by any means of the military tribunal's choosing.

    - Any violent activity whatsoever if it takes place near a designated protected building, such as a charity building.

    - A change of the definition of "pillaging" which turns all illegal occupation of property and all theft into terrorism. This makes squatters and petty thieves enemy combatants.


    This is another telltale facet that proves the bill applies to U.S. citizens and includes them under the "enemy combatant" designation. We previously cited the comments of Yale law Professor Bruce Ackerman, who wrote in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

    The New York Times stated that the legislation introduced, "A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."

    Calling the bill "our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts," the Times goes on to highlight the rubber stamping of torture.

    Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition.

    "Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."

    For an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. Why would a foreign terrorist have any allegiance to the United States to breach in the first place?

    Could protesting a war approved by the government and their bootlickers in Congress and the Senate be considered breaching an allegiance to the United States?

    Could campaigning against the bombing of a target country be considered wrongfully aiding the enemy?
     
Loading...