First NDAA "suspect" detained indefinitely

joe1976

Brandon Raub, a US marine was taken away for questioning by the FBI, suspected of being a belligerant and threat to national security of the US.

You can read details of this here

The conspiracy here is the NDAA that was enacted in the first place, an attack on the freedoms of America and the wider free world.

Some_Person

I thought NDAA was ruled as Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court lately?

joe1976

Since when did the law matter anymore anyway?

The same people responsible for the financial crisis are still walkin around committing the same fraud as before.

Look at the conditions for why this US marine was detained, there's no legal basis for it...but since when did any of that matter?

Run_to_da_hills

I don't see any conspiracy here, it was only a matter of time before Obama new fascist powers against freedom of speech were enacted irrespective of any Supreme Court decision.

Sceptics on this forum said that this would never happen, it has now began and soon the floodgates will swing wide open as martial and other counter terrorism acts kick in and bloggers get frogmarched off in to Fema concentration camps the run up to the presidential "election".

America is now living in precarious times as History is repeating itself.

hawkwind23

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/aug/19/tdmet02-chesterfield-man-held-in-hospital-on-conce-ar-2140519/

SO how do you guys know that this guy was arrested under new powers granted by the NDAA?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

SO how do you guys know that this guy was arrested under new powers granted by the NDAA?

What other act would enable the authorities to frog march a suspect off indefinitely on suspect "terrorism charges" without having the bill of rights read out to them?

joe1976

King Mob wrote:

SO how do you guys know that this guy was arrested under new powers granted
by the NDAA?

Sorry...ehm, when did the law matter again? please remind me.

Did you say "law" -- what is that? ...sheesh man, i don't even know what that is...*shrug*

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What other act would enable the authorities to frog march a suspect off indefinitely on suspect "terrorism charges" without having the bill of rights read out to them?

But he's not being held on any charges at all.
So how specifically do we know that this is because of the NDAA?

joe1976 wrote: »

Sorry...ehm, when did the law matter again? please remind me.

Did you say "law" -- what is that? ...sheesh man, i don't even know what that is...*shrug*

This does not answer my question and raises the further one: If they didn't care about the law, why did they need the NDAA?

joe1976

King Mob wrote:

But he's not being held on any charges at all.
So how specifically do we know that this is because of the NDAA?

That's the whole point of NDAA, the government can point the finger at someone they "suspect" of being a terrorist and ...that's about as complicated as it gets.

This does not answer my question and raises the further one: If
they didn't care about the law, why did they need the NDAA?

Look man, the law doesn't matter. If I'm Joe Bloggs at the FBI, I don't need any legislation to pull someone off the street for questioning because people like you will back me up anyway.

You're the gatekeeper and I thank you profusely for it.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

But he's not being held on any charges at all.

NDAA at its best.

joe1976

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

NDAA at its best.

He doesn't realise he's a gate keeper of this whether it's legal or not.

Check out Yuri Bezmenov on how people can be brainwashed.

joe1976

joe1976 wrote: »

That's the whole point of NDAA, the government can point the finger at someone they "suspect" of being a terrorist and ...that's about as complicated as it gets.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

NDAA at its best.

Then please point out the bits in the NDAA that specifically allowed for this arrest and show how that he was arrested under this law.

joe1976 wrote: »

Look man, the law doesn't matter. If I'm Joe Bloggs at the FBI, I don't need any legislation to pull someone off the street for questioning because people like you will back me up anyway.

You're the gatekeeper and I thank you profusely for it.

Then if that is the case, why did they need to bring in the NDAA?
why call the attention to it?

joe1976

King Mob wrote: »

Then please point out the bits in the NDAA that specifically allowed for this arrest and show how that he was arrested under this law.


Then if that is the case, why did they need to bring in the NDAA?
why call the attention to it?

Obama took the country to war with Libya, I don't recall any Law getting in the way of that but perhaps this is too invonvenient for you.

Dude111

Some_Person wrote:

I thought NDAA was ruled as Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court lately?

Yes but Obama is fighting it. HE ISNT GOING TO LET IT GO

weisses

Only section 1021 of that Law could apply here imo ... But only people linked with 9/11 can be held indefinitely ... (that's how i read it anyway)

joe1976

That's fantastic...except it doesn't really matter.

Countries have laws, yes..but does that mean they're abided by? ...no, of course not. Laws are irrelevant.

It's who you know, not what you know that makes a man in life.

Meritocracy is something practiced by few and really not prevalent in western society.

weisses

joe1976 wrote: »

That's fantastic...except it doesn't really matter.

Countries have laws, yes..but does that mean they're abided by? ...no, of course not. Laws are irrelevant.

It's who you know, not what you know that makes a man in life.

Meritocracy is something practiced by few and really not prevalent in western society.

I'm out \

joe1976

joe1976 wrote: »

Obama took the country to war with Libya, I don't recall any Law getting in the way of that but perhaps this is too invonvenient for you.

Ok, we've established that you do not believe they care about the law.
Now, if this is the case, why then did they bother to make up and pass the NDAA when it wasn't needed and could only serve to call attention to their evil ploy?

joe1976

weisses wrote: »

I'm out \

Thanks :rolleyes:

King Mob wrote:

Ok, we've established that you do not believe they care about the law.
Now,
if this is the case, why then did they bother to make up and pass the NDAA when
it wasn't needed and could only serve to call attention to their evil ploy?

It's just a formality.

Since when did Law even become relevant unless America enforces it?

Israel violate UN "laws" every day occupying land they believe "God" gave them.....you provide sanctity for those people by the way.

Put it like this...I'm gonna take your house and your car and there's nothing you can do about it....why? because God said I could..that's my "Law"
Obviously UN would disapprove but why should I care about that? ... "God" said I can do it...I mean, he penned his best seller some 2 thousand years ago.

joe1976

Israel violate UN "laws" every day occupying land they believe "God" gave
them.....you provide sanctity for those people by the way.

I say this because there are self-proclaimed "atheists" that are gate keepers on Judaic criminality.

Stalin was "atheist" but came from Jewish family.
Lenin was "atheist" but came from Jewish family.
Trotsky was "atheist" but came from Jewish family.

This isn't some coincidence, Jewish people remain the most powerful people on earth in control of financial institutions for example...Atheist? yeah...right.

Christopher Hitchens supported the assault on Iraq but considered himself an atheist....these people are crooks.

joe1976

joe1976 wrote: »

It's just a formality.

Since when did Law even become relevant unless America enforces it?

But again, you've failed to answer the very simple questions put to you.
1)How specifically do you know that the the NDAA granted the powers needed to arrest this one guy, or which specific actions did he do that are now made illegal by the NDAA?
2)Why did they bother with a formality if they already supposedly had the power and the formality apparently just calls attention to that fact?

Run_to_da_hills

John Whitehead Interviews Brandon Raub.

"This is the sane, articulate man who was held in a psychiatric hospital because of his views on 9/11, government corruption and the deletion of freedom".

He had to explain to the authorities that the Spears Jackson Illuminati card game was the reason for much of his articulate vocabulary used on his "subversive" FB content. LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5dA1N3S9Es

“Originally, I never imagined that there would be problems to the degree we have or things going on that are easy to find if you are told to go look for them. Very specifically, the rampant abuse of executive orders,” he explained. “It literally gives the president the ability to write his own laws.”

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

John Whitehead Interviews Brandon Raub.

This is the sane, articulate man who was held in a psychiatric hospital because of his views on 9/11, government corruption and the deletion of freedom.

So why was he released at all?

Any fear of you answering the questions you've left dangling?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

So why was he released at all?

Any fear of you answering the questions you've left dangling?

They couldn't find a charge for him.

They were probably fearful of detaining him under NDAA as it would draw major awareness, something they are not really ready for ...yet.

Torakx

"The FBI did not arrest him," Rybiski said. "We are not commenting any further."

Looks like a clear case of abduction and assault to me.
According to "law" those people filming i think had the right to a citizens arrest for abduction and assault.
But lets be realistic, are you really going to intterupt a fascist government when they have their goons waiting to taze your ass.

A good example of the anti "terrorist" campaign in action.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They couldn't find a charge for him.

They were probably fearful of detaining him under NDAA as it would draw major awareness, something they are not really ready for ...yet.

Hang on.
So they brought in the NDAA to allow them to arrest whoever they want. But they couldn't use it this time cause they didn't want to use the NDAA in case people found out about it?
So why did they "arrest" him under the NDAA in the first place?
What's the point of having this law when apparently they don't actually need it and also apparently are too afraid to use it?

And then you still have not addressed the questions I have earlier posed.

Surely you realise how silly your theory looks right?

Run_to_da_hills

Torakx wrote: »

"The FBI did not arrest him," Rybiski said. "We are not commenting any further."

Looks like a clear case of abduction and assault to me.
According to "law" those people filming i think had the right to a citizens arrest for abduction and assault.
But lets be realistic, are you really going to intterupt a fascist government when they have their goons waiting to taze your ass.

A good example of the anti "terrorist" campaign in action.

Wait until Obama's NDAA is fully implemented and it won't be just isolated cases of sporadic arrests here and there. it will be more like DHS storm troopers kicking down doors, mass arrests and indefinite FEMA camp detention.

Torakx

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Wait until Obama's NDAA is fully implemented and it won't be just isolated cases of sporadic arrests here and there. it will be more like DHS storm troopers kicking down doors, mass arrests and indefinite FEMA camp detention.

I can see that as being a possibility alright.
For now i think it will just be here and there to reinforce that psychological hold they have on people.

I do have another theory that they need a rebellion so they can control opposition to a union with north america and south.
And if so, this is a precursor of sorts.

This old Machiavelli saying applies to what i mean.
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

for all we know these threats in the Ct world porting into mainstream could be psychological threats by the "government" to instigate a civil uprising so they can "keep their enemies close" and control said rebbellion while doing bussiness accross borders.

The only issue i see is that when it "was" done in Ireland regarding the IRA and joining the EU it took a good few years to implement this.
Is possible in the US they are using a streamlines version to speed the process.Or that it will actually take another 10-15 years to accomplish said union through this method.

Or im just incorrect