Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Govt. Activating "Fema Camps" Across U.S. A.


  • Please log in to reply
184 replies to this topic

#151    Omnaka

Omnaka

    Omnaka

  • Member
  • 7,064 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North West, U,S,A,

  • Forgive the Body and love the soul, For the soul is Gods Eternal child, your Brother.
    O.

Posted 12 December 2011 - 07:43 AM

View PostKarlis, on 12 December 2011 - 07:19 AM, said:

Well Omnaka, all I can say is: "Top Marks for Perseverance!" :P
Thanks Karlis for pointing out the petition, at the same time eliminating it. ;)
Love Omnaka


#152    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,625 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 12 December 2011 - 04:17 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 12 December 2011 - 01:44 AM, said:

That is so, but if nut-jobs are going to use Google Earth to proove their fantasy camps exist, then at least there should be something on Google Earth where they say it is.

Ah, I see. In any case, anybody who has actually bothered to read 1031 will notice that they needs lots of fantasy to convert that text into "Battlefield USA".or why would they say that it seez things like:

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
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States

Besides that, it could be possible that there would be (and have been) hostile foreign forces on US soil to be detained, are we going to let 'em all scream for a lawyer before putting them up in military prison?

Nor have they bothered to read 1032: that seez:

3 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.

  (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.

In conclusion, this is either a cheap attempt to create hysteria or we have the demonstration that some people of the ACLU are either incapable or unwilling to read.



A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#153    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2011 - 04:24 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 12 December 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:

Ah, I see. In any case, anybody who has actually bothered to read 1031 will notice that they needs lots of fantasy to convert that text into "Battlefield USA".or why would they say that it seez things like:

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
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States

Besides that, it could be possible that there would be (and have been) hostile foreign forces on US soil to be detained, are we going to let 'em all scream for a lawyer before putting them up in military prison?

Nor have they bothered to read 1032: that seez:

3 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.

  (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.

In conclusion, this is either a cheap attempt to create hysteria or we have the demonstration that some people of the ACLU are either incapable or unwilling to read.

It "does not extend to", but "can it extend to", on a whim? I see no language that strongly prohibits that eventuality at all, that is what the chaos is about. If it truly "does not extend to" then they should have no qualms about adding further language to clearly state that fact. If they are unwilling to do so, that will reveal the truth of their intentions, common sense will dictate the rest.

Edited by Spid3rCyd3, 12 December 2011 - 04:32 PM.


#154    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2011 - 08:33 PM

View PostSpid3rCyd3, on 12 December 2011 - 04:24 PM, said:

It "does not extend to", but "can it extend to", on a whim? I see no language that strongly prohibits that eventuality at all, that is what the chaos is about. If it truly "does not extend to" then they should have no qualms about adding further language to clearly state that fact. If they are unwilling to do so, that will reveal the truth of their intentions, common sense will dictate the rest.

How about, "will never extend to"? I'd be ok with that. It's a two word change, and clearly states what the deal is.

Edited by Spid3rCyd3, 12 December 2011 - 08:34 PM.


#155    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,694 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 12 December 2011 - 09:28 PM

View PostSpid3rCyd3, on 12 December 2011 - 04:24 PM, said:

It "does not extend to", but "can it extend to", on a whim? I see no language that strongly prohibits that eventuality at all, that is what the chaos is about. If it truly "does not extend to" then they should have no qualms about adding further language to clearly state that fact. If they are unwilling to do so, that will reveal the truth of their intentions, common sense will dictate the rest.
This arguement can apply to any limiting law. Guns, abortion, tv censoring, education laws, zoning laws, inheritance laws... None of these are iron-clad so that they cannot be ever changed, for better or worse.

They will not include such language because that would be needlessly wasteful of time and resources. Why turn a 100 page bill into a 200 page bill for the purpose of listing all exclusions and minute specifications? Why increase the work on a bill by 50%? To prevent the widescale and violent capture and imprisonment of the nations innocent citizens? What are the odds of needing to imprison large percentages of the population?

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#156    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 12 December 2011 - 09:35 PM

This thread is still going?  :huh: Shouldn't it have collapsed under its own silliness by now?

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#157    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,625 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 12 December 2011 - 09:52 PM

View PostCorp, on 12 December 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

This thread is still going?  :huh: Shouldn't it have collapsed under its own silliness by now?

Not when it is the "government-is-about-to-get-me-to-sell-me-to-the-aliens paranoia" then it can be downright puerile and they go on and on about it.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#158    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2011 - 10:45 PM

"Will never extend to", two words, what's the problem?


#159    dreamgoddess11

dreamgoddess11

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 89 posts
  • Joined:17 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New York

  • “Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
    ― John F. Kennedy

Posted 12 December 2011 - 11:19 PM

Interesting. My thoughts..... Have you ever considered that our government simply wants to be prepared for a natural or other type of disaster for the American people? There are some good officials in our government (few) that do look at previous disasters after the fact and perform a review/evaluation. IE: what went wrong? what went well? What can we do better in the future? How do we implement this change? What resources are required..ect. That being said, makes sense to have them spread out
regionally. Afterall, It seems like they actually did a review after the Katrina disaster. Remember the folks spead out all over? In the dome ect..? They are simply trying to set up a system in case a scenario like that happens again...(& it will, matter of time).

Now let's say there is some conspiracy & Our Men in arms are ordered to perform heinous crimes..let me tell you, there is an unspoken Soldiers code the mass majority of military men follow thru-out the ranks.  it's the right to disobey an UNLAWFUL order. I know our men & women in the services would rise up and take a stand against such things. They are human just like us, they have families too. Put your self in their shoes an ask your self, "what would I do?".

Edited by dreamgoddess11, 12 December 2011 - 11:21 PM.


#160    Omnaka

Omnaka

    Omnaka

  • Member
  • 7,064 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North West, U,S,A,

  • Forgive the Body and love the soul, For the soul is Gods Eternal child, your Brother.
    O.

Posted 13 December 2011 - 03:24 AM

View Postdreamgoddess11, on 12 December 2011 - 11:19 PM, said:

Interesting. My thoughts..... Have you ever considered that our government simply wants to be prepared for a natural or other type of disaster for the American people? There are some good officials in our government (few) that do look at previous disasters after the fact and perform a review/evaluation. IE: what went wrong? what went well? What can we do better in the future? How do we implement this change? What resources are required..ect. That being said, makes sense to have them spread out
regionally. Afterall, It seems like they actually did a review after the Katrina disaster. Remember the folks spead out all over? In the dome ect..? They are simply trying to set up a system in case a scenario like that happens again...(& it will, matter of time).

Now let's say there is some conspiracy & Our Men in arms are ordered to perform heinous crimes..let me tell you, there is an unspoken Soldiers code the mass majority of military men follow thru-out the ranks.  it's the right to disobey an UNLAWFUL order. I know our men & women in the services would rise up and take a stand against such things. They are human just like us, they have families too. Put your self in their shoes an ask your self, "what would I do?".
Hopefully we have progressed since the civil war where it actually came down to fighting Brother against brother. and again, there is always some gung ho soldier who actually wants to kill people (Believe it or not) and or do it for a buck.

Love Omnaka


#161    Omnaka

Omnaka

    Omnaka

  • Member
  • 7,064 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North West, U,S,A,

  • Forgive the Body and love the soul, For the soul is Gods Eternal child, your Brother.
    O.

Posted 13 December 2011 - 03:35 AM

For the same reasons This Gent mentions, and more, Is why I do not trust those in our Govmt, Todays headlines in our Daily Rag said: War in Iraq Ends this month. I'm Taking Bets. Anyone?
Love Omnaka


#162    dreamgoddess11

dreamgoddess11

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 89 posts
  • Joined:17 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New York

  • “Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
    ― John F. Kennedy

Posted 13 December 2011 - 04:36 AM

View PostOmnaka, on 13 December 2011 - 03:24 AM, said:

Hopefully we have progressed since the civil war where it actually came down to fighting Brother against brother. and again, there is always some gung ho soldier who actually wants to kill people (Believe it or not) and or do it for a buck.

Love Omnaka
You didnt answer the question. What would you do?
I was a Soldier, My husband was, My father and every other male of age in my family.
Your perception of our military seems Distorted.
"gung ho" is not a term I would use to describe the "bad apples".
(which are everywhere...could be a neighbor not just Military)
Fact of the matter is, the majority rules here.
Our men & women have more LDRSHIP->
loyalty, duty, respect,selfless service, honor, integrity
& personal courage to do the right thing for our country
& our people than most citizens will ever truly witness or
Experience.  Look at it from a different view,
honestly if you were in the service,
u were ordered to do something unlawful... What would u do?


#163    dreamgoddess11

dreamgoddess11

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 89 posts
  • Joined:17 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New York

  • “Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
    ― John F. Kennedy

Posted 13 December 2011 - 04:51 AM

View PostOmnaka, on 13 December 2011 - 03:35 AM, said:

For the same reasons This Gent mentions, and more, Is why I do not trust those in our Govmt, Todays headlines in our Daily Rag said: War in Iraq Ends this month. I'm Taking Bets. Anyone?
Love Omnaka

Uhmmm .... the war has ended there.
Its Simply sustainment ops now, HUGE difference.  
Supporting them Vs out there fighting the fight.
HUGE difference in manpower & ops.
U really don't think we could pack up & leave all at once?
That wouldn't be right.
It's called a transition for a reason. And it takes time.


#164    dreamgoddess11

dreamgoddess11

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 89 posts
  • Joined:17 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New York

  • “Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
    ― John F. Kennedy

Posted 13 December 2011 - 05:03 AM

View PostSpid3rCyd3, on 12 December 2011 - 04:24 PM, said:

It "does not extend to", but "can it extend to", on a whim? I see no language that strongly prohibits that eventuality at all, that is what the chaos is about. If it truly "does not extend to" then they should have no qualms about adding further language to clearly state that fact. If they are unwilling to do so, that will reveal the truth of their intentions, common sense will dictate the rest.

Sorry, I can't be silent on this topic.
Federal regulations are always written in this way.
"does not"  is not a "grey area phrase"
"does not" means exactly that.
There is no room for interpretation.
There is no need to put "will not".
It's the same thing.


#165    Omnaka

Omnaka

    Omnaka

  • Member
  • 7,064 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North West, U,S,A,

  • Forgive the Body and love the soul, For the soul is Gods Eternal child, your Brother.
    O.

Posted 13 December 2011 - 08:01 AM

View Postdreamgoddess11, on 13 December 2011 - 04:51 AM, said:

Uhmmm .... the war has ended there.
Its Simply sustainment ops now, HUGE difference.  
Supporting them Vs out there fighting the fight.
HUGE difference in manpower & ops.
U really don't think we could pack up & leave all at once?
That wouldn't be right.
It's called a transition for a reason. And it takes time.
I'll put you down for $5.00 then :lol:
love omnaka





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users