JADE HELM 15

Post Reply New Topic

So let me get this straight - a disaster recovery operated by FEMA is proof of this Jade Helm 15 bs? These people are afraid of FEMA?Actually you are worse off when you get flooded and there's no Fema on the ground, like with what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. I bet they are in Texas because we just had a tropical storm called Bill and the flooding has been bad so they are going to help out all the poor folks who lost homes and properties in floods or had damage.

We have had direct dealings with FEMA and the National Guard right after a natural disaster and even something that looks like Martial Law but it was only to secure the area, keep looters out and everyone away from all the downed power lines, allowing first responders and road crews to work on infrastructure because no one needed to be here without electric and other vital services. Once the electric and cable came back, the NG was outta here lickity split. They didn't hang around enforcing martial law.

If there are FEMA camps, this is one of the things they will be used for. From what I have heard, the FEMA camps that are ready for use are old camps that were used during WWII. I'm sure some of you will come up with excuses for even this.....


Obama Signs into Law Indefinite Detention of Americans without Trial


He waited until New Year’s Eve to do it…but he did it. While expressing “serious reservations” about the bill, President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve signed legislation that cements into law two highly controversial tenets of the war on terror: indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without charge, and the jailing of American citizens without trial. It also takes terrorism-related cases out of the hands of the FBI and the civilian court system and hands them over to the military.



Obama approved the bill (known as the National Defense Authorization Act), but at the same time, in a signing statement, claimed his administration would not allow the military to detain Americans indefinitely.



Civil libertarians were nonetheless outraged by Obama’s approval of the legislation. They claim that Obama is taking a “Trust me; I won’t do it” position. However, even if he does refrain from abusing the law, there is no guarantee that future presidents won’t imprison Americans and others indefinitely without trial or even without charge.



Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), called Obama’s action “a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law. Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today.”



David Gespass, president of the National Lawyers Guild, called it an “enormous attack on the U.S. and our heritage” and a “significant step” towards fascism.



The use of indefinite detention began shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks when the George W. Bush administration shipped al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects and others to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Federal courts upheld the practice, agreeing with the Bush White House that the Authorization for Use of Military Force bill, passed by Congress only seven days after 9/11, allowed for the detentions to occur.



But Republican and Democratic lawmakers felt it was necessary to codify into federal law the power of the presidency to detain anyone—citizen and non-citizen alike—accused of plotting against the U.S. or providing support to those who have done so.



Obama’s supporters, including Republicans who normally oppose almost everything he does, have tried to defend the bill by saying that it doesn’t really go as far as its critics claim. However, the wording of the act, although carefully phrased, is nonetheless clear.



For example, Obama apologists say that it does not codify indefinite detention. But section 1021 (c-1) allows “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities.” A U.S. president can take the position that he is engaged in a war without end. In fact, that is exactly what Presidents Bush and Obama have done. In addition, section (b-2) states that the law applies not just to members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but to any person who has “substantially supported” “associated forces.” Because these terms are not defined, Obama would appear to be free to interpret them as he chooses…as would be any future president.



Supporters of the president—and the members of Congress of both parties who passed the bill—dismiss the contention that American citizens can be detained indefinitely. Again the wording is clever, but disturbing. Section 1022 (b-1) states that, in regard to U.S. citizens “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” The key word here is “requirement.” In other words, the president still has the option to place Americans in indefinite military detention.



Some Americans may say that terrorism suspects should be stopped using any means necessary, and that if a few innocent people are imprisoned without trial by mistake, it’s unfortunate, but it’s better to be safe than sorry. However, there is now nothing to stop the current president of the United States, or the next one or the one after that, from taking advantage of the wording of the law and the fear of enemies to imprison whomever he chooses.

-David Wallechinsky, Noel Brinkerhoff

you can thank the republicans for this one, they overwhelmingly voted yes on the bill in congress:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#/media/File:NDAA_2012_House_vote.svg

Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... _detention

I despise all political parties.

I agree, politics could stand to be far less of a pissing contest and more about getting things done.

I have long advocated that political parties should be prohibited in official government institutions. In other words, be a Republi-crat all you want, but park it at the curb when you go to work (federal law already prohibits partisan activities among bureaucratic staffers). I believe it is time to do the same within the elected- and appointed-official realm. This would mean no more partisan congressional "leaders" and "chairs," no more partisan "caucuses." The same would apply to White House staffers.

I don't care who voted it in. Like I said before, it's not about the parties of Democrats and Republicans anymore - it's gone way beyond that; they are all in it together. I know things that would make your hair stand on end to the point that my friend Mary can't listen to it anymore because she doesn't want to believe it actually could be happening. She wonders how I can get up in the morning and I sometimes wonder that too. My Ma thinks the same so at least I have someone to share things with when it becomes too overwhelming, but my brother and my Pa think we are both crack pots. You can think I'm crazy. I don't even care anymore. I'm to the point where I keep most of it to myself anyway and only tell people that I can trust, but there are times when I feel like I have to tell people so they can be prepared and they either accept it and research it or call me a loon. You know what's interesting though, I'm finding a lot more people than I thought believe the same things as me - coworkers and even patients (several in fact). So maybe I'm not as off the mark as I thought.

I wouldn't know about how effective that would be, humans are pretty tribal in nature. also, what system of voting would you replace it with?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/us/in ... .html?_r=0

I think that Thomas Jefferson proposed a system where political candidates would present themselves to voters on issue stances alone. For example, you'd have five candidates in a debate, and each would take a stand on an issue that was presented to them. Then the next issue would come up, and they'd take a stand. IOW, there wouldn't be "Republicans" and "Democrats", just nonaligned candidates who would run on the issues.

Like much of TJ's thinking, this method was probably unrealistic. Even as early as Washington's administration, two political parties were forming, originally called Federalists (advocates of a strong central govt) and Anti-Federalists (advocates of states rights). Federalists were primarily Northerners (or "Easterners" in the lingo of the time) while Anti-Federalists were primarily Southerners. After the founding generation was gone, the split would gradually become unreconcilable, and lead to a civil war.

In the initial years after the Constitution was ratified, candidates literally bought votes with whiskey. The guy who won had either the best or most grog. Washington hated the idea, but had no choice but to go along.

Its Thursday, July 16, 2015 and were still here...

The military did say the exercise would go for eight weeks so maybe they are waiting until August to institute martial law. The plethora of youtube videos documenting it will disappear and the people who made them will be sent to reeducation camps. When they are allowed out of the camps in 2016, they will disavow everything they ever said was suspicious in the videos and declare themselves loyal citizens of the New World Order.

The New World Order will set up its government in Austin, where disinformation agents disguised as Mumford and Sons fans spent the last 5 years laying groundwork. No true Texan would be a hipster. Why didn't people see that before? We tried to warn them but they turned a blind eye to Austin coffee shops and disturbingly gentle folk music.

It turned out that Knights Transportation really was a reference to Knights Templar, the European wing of the New World Order. Why did nobody see that, nobody but one brave man in a store parking lot. They beat the braveness out of him. After the re-education camp he was assigned to be a driver for Knights "Transportation" trucks. The Europeans love irony.

China infilterated with armies hidden in plain sight in Chinatowns on both coasts. And you thought it was all delicious food and dragon dancers. Sucker!

Russia infilterated with a fembot army disguised as brides. All those men who married mail order Russian 'brides' are sorry now.

So far so good...

Candidates for elected public offices could campaign as Republi-crats or even "the Standing at the Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party" candidates. But, when they assume their offices from 9 to 5, or when performing official duties at any time, they would be required to avoid acting in any partisan way. After all, this works for their underlings who have had to comply with federal law which prohibits similarly that they not act in partisan ways during work hours. If know-nothing staffers can safely wander through that minefield, it seems to me that the overlords of our republic should learn to do the same.