Rand Paul,earns his keep!Helping to defeat the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867),amendment No. 1274.By a vote of 41-59 in the Senate.The amendment would allow the U.S. government to detain an American citizen indefinitely and without trial.Does this stop the enemy.Perhaps for now,but clearly not for long.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2011/12/senator-paul-statement-on-defeat-of-detainee-amendment/

Thank God for Rand Paul but S. 1867 passed the senate and there are still parts of it that say that they can abduct US Citizens in the US in secret, hold them indefinitely, and never charge them with a crime. If S. 1867 becomes law it will legalize their old Red List plan.

If patriots start disappearing it is game on and surrender will not be an option.

See: http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-bill-passes-senate-93-7

http://www.infowars.com/terrorist-congress-declares-war-on-american-people

Again, have a place to go that doesn't have your name on it. Or better yet several-rooms, apartments, abandoned farms, caves.

Rand Paul's actions were a I minor victory.But,it will in the end help give Militia the credibility needed to hold the line against any open attacks against us or the civilian population.

Walfred
Yes it will, but only if the Militias can get everyone to know when TSHGTF.
Move too soon and get handed their hearts in a box. Move too late and they have no chance to assemble.
What is needed is to go to J.Croft's site and look up his documents on the Committees of Safety, and Committees of Correspondence.
A militia without a local government calling the shots, and leaving them to conduct the hostilities, is just a loose gang. Since we can't depend upon those we elected to do what is needed, and right, there needs to be a government of the people created that will.

Do you this site? http://awrm.webs.com

I concur,Safetalker.Civilian rule is the only way the Militia can succeed.But,I would go a step further.Hold local caucus'...Choose local delegates to go to the state capital and be the acting State Legislature.They in turn choose a small delegation to meet with other state delegates to convene a "NEW" national assembly.

If patriots start disappearing it will be because the the Red List Arrests have started and they will be executing the patriots in the FEMA camps. They will be coming to put you in a FEMA Concentration Camp too. Then it will not be time to play politics or government and it will not be time to get an apartment. It will be time to head to a remote location with your militia group and prepare a counter attack.

I would remind everyone of this...

http://www.awrm.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=32;t=000577

In particular...

7. We will NOT tolerate any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal. The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason. An unwarranted, armed attack against any member of the militia or it’s leadership, will be considered an attack against all the State Militia’s and will necessitate a response.

10. We will NOT tolerate any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. Any order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial is an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used.

Source

Blind Obedience to the State: The Sheep Are Now Ready for Slaughter!
By Gary D. Barnett

A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.... The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.
~ Aldous Huxley

Men are born with free will, so why do they behave as slaves? Most in this country believe that the politicians are civil or "public" servants, while the common man is king. Most believe because they cast a ballot to choose their "leaders" that they are free, but the politicians among us are really the masters of a population of slaves. To paraphrase Charles de Gaulle, the politician simply poses as a servant, in order to become the master.

In America today, the many are ruled by the few. The many allow this tyranny voluntarily, and with open arms. The only men who can be reduced to servitude are those who choose to do so. For men who cling to liberty with passion can never be ruled, and will never allow their freedom to be taken from them. These are men of truth and character, and sadly, they are the extreme minority. These men of integrity are now directly in the crosshairs of this oligarchy called America, and without them, the rest of society is doomed to a life of serfdom.

To obey the restrictive rules crafted by the politicians, and without resistance, is to guarantee the destruction of liberty. It is not only a fatal form of apathy, but it is also the basis for the destruction of our soul. Politicians after all, are the lowest form of man, and do not deserve respect when their aim is to rule over and control the rest of us. For what are we if we simply do as others in power demand, without the courage to stand up for what is right? What are we if we bow our heads in fear when our fellow man is being trampled? What are we when we allow all that we have earned to be taken from us by force, and say or do nothing to stop it? What have we become when the worth of a man is judged by his allegiance to the state?

It is time for these questions to be answered honestly, because those who are willing to fight against tyranny are now being targeted for extinction. The nefarious Senate of this land just passed Senate Bill 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. If accurately titled, it would be called instead the Sedition Act of 2012. Most of those opposed to this horrible legislation are concentrating on just two sections, those being Sections 1031 and 1032. While Section 1031 allows for any American to be captured, held indefinitely without charge or trial, tortured or worse, the rest is not much better, and the entire bill should be scrapped immediately!

It is instructive to understand that the U.S. government and its military have been for the past ten years capturing and incarcerating foreigners and Americans, and without benefit of due process. The president now "claims" the power to assassinate any on earth he chooses to, including American citizens, and without charge or trial. But this new legislation will in my opinion not only massively expand these so-called powers, but also bring them under the guise of legality. This is more dangerous than most realize, because it will help keep the sheep at bay when mass roundup of American citizens becomes the norm. This is due to the nonsensical popular belief that just because the ruling class makes a law, it must be followed, even if it is bad law.

And now fusion center documents have labeled any who investigate the Oklahoma City bombing as terrorists. Pair this with the passage of S. 1867, and the terrifying picture becomes clear. The government now holds the position that any who question what goes on in this country, or even any who question the government story line, are practicing terrorism. This cannot be doubted, especially considering the fusion center story, and the passage by the senate of S. 1867.

What this means in real terms is that all dissenters, all truth tellers, all protesters, and all who question "authority," can in the eyes of government be captured and imprisoned indefinitely, and without benefit of trial. All of us who question what this government does and what its motives are, can now be hauled away to concentration camps, and even tortured or murdered, all under the umbrella of the "law!"

As for me, I question every single thing this government says and does, and I investigate most every government action. Because of this despicable legislation, what will become of the truth tellers? What will become of honest libertarians? What will become of those of us who are unafraid to expose lies and corruption? What will become of all of us?

The scope of this legislation is far reaching, and without limit. The literal barbarity of this is obvious to any right thinking person, and the probable consequences of speaking one’s mind in the future could be deadly.

The most dangerous sound now could be the sound of silence, for if we do not speak out and rebel against this travesty, we will be doomed to a life of servitude. When we finally refuse to serve no more, then we will at once be free. No man should serve another by force, and no man deserves to be free if he does.

It is incredible how as soon as a people become subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and willingly, that one is led to say that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.
~ Etienne de la Boetie

Damn good reminder

Quote JFK
“Those who make Peaceful Revolution impossible, will make Violent Revolution inevitable.“

What this bill if enacted will effectively do is to make Peaceful Revolution impossible, so these Traitorous Congress Scum will make the coming Revolution a Violent one.

After we win the War we must make sure that the Scum that are responsible for all the death and misery from the lowest trigger puller all the way to the top must held fully accountable and they must be punished for their crimes against the People. And this punishment must be severe. Also they must pay the price for their actions regardless of where they have escaped to. There must not be any sanctuary for any of them, anywhere in the world. Any Nation which gives them sanctuary will be given a choice, to surrender them or to feel the wrath of the New United States.

We need to watch closely for the first to go...If they follow S.O.P,they'll grab one or two initially.Then wait for a reaction before proceeding with any kind of mass round ups.When does this Bill(if pass)take affect?1st of the year or immediately?

Here's more proof the Republican Party really doesn't like Tea Partiers. When you call Sen. Rand Paul a "libertarian extremist," we pretty much know where you're coming from.

And my favorite line in the whole article:

You ever want to just reach into a computer and just strangle someone? Trust me, some us "libertarian extremists" aren't quite as pacifist as Andrew McCarthy seems to think.

Onward and upward,
airforce

They know S 1867 will be signed into law and they are getting the FEMA Concentration Camps ready for prisoners now. See: http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-government-activating-fema-camps-across-u-s

I'm seeing more than just this, but also the national police force again and military selling weapons to local leos for just shipping cost.

You just cant make this crap up. It sounds fantastic, and when I say that, I mean it sounds friggen crazy. It wont be long now, we will have our hands full. So, will they.

Leo out

Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens



White House removed language that would have protected Americans from Section 1031 of NDAA

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, December 12, 2011

Despite reports that Obama is planning to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, Senator Carl Levin has revealed it was the administration itself that lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levine, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. The bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.

An amendment introduced by Democratic Senator Feinstein, described as “cleverly worded nonsense” by Congressman Justin Amash, does not protect Americans from being subject to the provision.

“The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) is dangerously misleading,” writes John Wood of Change.org, which is running a petition to oppose the signing of the bill. “Don’t be fooled: In the text of 1031(e), “Nothing in this section shall be construed…”, the only word that matters is “construed” because the Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to construe the law. The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) permits citizens to be imprisoned without evidence or a trial forever, if the Supreme Court does not EXPLICITLY repeal 1031.”

The Obama administration never had a problem with Section 1031 of the bill and indeed acted to ensure it applied to American citizens. Doubts over whether or not Obama would veto the bill only arose out of issues with Section 1032, which pertains to the military being required to take custody of individuals.

“Confusingly, Obama threatened a veto for 1032, but NOT 1031. 1032 is UNRELATED to imprisoning citizens without a trial. Obama has never suggested using a veto to stop Section 1031 citizen imprisonment,” writes Wood.

The notion that the administration lobbied for language that would have protected American citizens and legal residents from indefinite detention to be removed from the bill is unsurprising given Obama’s policy with regard to predator drone strikes.

The White House has asserted the right to carry out state-sponsored assassination anywhere in the world without having to provide any evidence or go through any legal process. The administration merely has to state that the target is a terrorist and it doesn’t matter whether they are an American citizen or not, as we saw in the case of American-born Anwar al-Awlaki and his son who were both killed earlier this year.

Indeed, at the start of the month, Obama administration lawyers reaffirmed their backing for state sponsored assassination.

Congress has until tomorrow to block the law before it heads to President Obama’s desk. Putting faith in an administration that has formalized state-sponsored assassination of U.S. citizens without trial to block the ‘indefinite detention’ provision of the NDAA bill is naive to say the least.

Sign the petition, contact your representative and contact the White House making your opposition to the bill known by clicking here.

I have been reading many threads about this new Bill, not sure of the Final content, but be sure this should be a Warning Flag to all Patriots..They are out of the shadows and in the naked light of day..they are Traitors, they will pay a heavy price for this Treason..I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees..We will prevail..the 3% as always..Prep Pray Train!

Indefinite detention is a legitimate part of the laws of land warfare when it comes to actual enemy combatants.

The question then arises over how and who and when military officials will determine that someone is an enemy combatant. Now in the case of the Al-Queda recruits, if the criteria are honestly applied, then the indefinite detention is legit.

If however, the detention is based on lies, innuendo and some off hand drunken remarks made in a chatroom somewhere, that is another matter entirely. I know for a fact that the US Attorney's office in Oregon has in the past allowed agents to lie in order to use additional resources to go after targeted individuals, but the lies about said individuals being "connected to Al Queda" were reviewed by military authorities, found to be false, and the terrorism case dropped before it got very far specifically because the individuals involved were in the military, had not professed any conversion to Islam and had volunteered for deployment to the sandbox.

In the meantime, the US Attorney decided to take a different prosecutive approach. I also got an unconfirmed report of a government attack on the law office of an attorney in Eugene Oregon that was ransacked by the feds. The door was breached with an explosive entry while the office was not occupied, files taken and then the lawyer notified of several restrictions on the manner of communication he could have with his client. That being in the 2004-2005 time period. Again, military not involved. That was all under existing law.

We also know how the case of Mark Koernke was prosecuted. A cop was given a false BOLO on him, then went after Koernke on a false bank robbery allegation, then Koernke was convicted and imprisoned for getting away in a high speed car chase, which was prompted on false allegations. Once in prison, situations were manipulated in such a way the Koernke got extra prison time and there were several attempts on his life made in ways that were supposed to appear either accidental or inmate vs inmate violence. Again, all under existing circumstances and law, and I think mostly even before the Patriot Act got put into play.

Right now in the sandbox, military intelligence people are dealing with the fact that Iraqi criminal informants are pulling the same stunts that criminal informants do in the US, selling false information for real money, often just turning in some sucker for reward money and what ends up in government custody a lot of the times are unpopular cab drivers and goat herders who just got sold down the river by double agents working for whoever pays at any given time. One week they are scouting US military convoy routes for placement of IEDs, the next week they are attempting to gain the trust of those same commanders they set up ambushes against by turning in the names of some local inhabitants that someone else is also willing to speak against.

The new bill not only changes very little in the real world, but it gives what some of the loudmouths in the Militia movement have asked for: POW status.

The US government also has a history of allowing for or calling for the assassination of various outlaws and terrorists. In the old west, this was done with "wanted dead or alive" posters. US Marshalls put up the reward for various rogue Indians and outlaws and while perhaps the actual operations to kill or capture the individuals were technically secret, the causes were fully public and known.

The question then becomes one of whether or not someone is openly or secretly declared a legitimate target of the state. What we know is that at the criminal level, there is such a thing as a "death warrant" given in various extreme cases, special language used in a "Be On the Lookout". It is quite likely that such language was used in the warrants when Charles Dyer was on the run and that explains to some degree the treatment of Debbie Swan.

What we are also being told (so far) is that everything against Swan and Dyer is coming from the Justice Department, not the military. Dyer did go through a military sedition trial and was found not guilty, with that determination unlikely to change any time soon, his entire case was shunted over to the Justice Department which is proving at this point to be willing to play dirty pool just to prosecute a targeted individual "legally". I personally don't think it qualifies as a presidential death warrant.

40 Members of Congress Protest ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill


Legislation set for final vote Thursday

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, December 14, 2011

40 members of Congress have sent an urgent letter to House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders protesting provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that would legalize indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, as the revised version of the bill heads for a final vote on Thursday.

“The Senate-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens’ right to trial. We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military,” states the letter.

Opposition to the bill has been bipartisan. While the letter is signed mostly by Democratic members of Congress, Republican representatives like Justin Amash, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul have also been vocal in their opposition.

After a weekend of secret meetings, the final version of the bill emerged on Tuesday morning and is set to voted on before the end of the week. Issues the Obama administration had with the bill, which had nothing to do with indefinite detention (indeed it was the White House itself which removed language that would have protected Americans from Section 1031), now appear to have been settled.

Both the ACLU and Human Rights Watch point out that the final version does nothing to protect American citizens against indefinite detention.

“The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain – the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself,” said the ACLU’s Chris Anders.

“The latest version of the defense authorization bill does nothing to address the bill’s core problems – legislated indefinite detention without charge and the militarization of law enforcement,” concurred HRW’s Andrea Prasow.

Proponent of the legislation Senator Lindsay Graham ironically summed up the nightmare scenario the bill will codify into law – the complete evisceration of all Constitutional protections for U.S. citizens.

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

Of course, the government would not be required to present any evidence whatsoever or go through any legal process to snatch an American citizen off the street and send them to Guantanamo Bay, merely accusing them of aiding terrorists or ‘committing an act of belligerence’ would be enough.

Protests and funeral marches to mark the death of freedom in America and the legalization of permanent martial law, are being planned for Thursday, which ironically is Bill of Rights Day, 220 years since the liberties now about to be eviscerated were first ratified on December 15, 1791.

If this insane tyrannical laws passes it could start Civil War II. If accused citizens are secretly abducted and don't get a fair trail then they might start shooting it out with whoever tries to arrest them. Next since offense is much more effective than defense others might start acting preemptively figuring that their abduction will be next. This damn law needs to be stopped now.

I personally don't think there is any single act of congress that would start Civil War II. No single act of the president and not even a single bad incident carried out under government authority.

As long as the 51% majority figures they are doing alright and don't feel the sting of being targeted by .gov, they will figure that any revolutionary acts are the venue of malcontents and nutjobs.

How many of our people have been in that predicament of being arrested and told they don't get a lawyer until after they have been charged with something, and then lots of threats and blackmail are used to wheedle some advantage out of the individual? These naysayers really have their heads in the sand over the way the feds have been operating for a long time. Heck, even your county level law enforcement task forces pretty routinely use threats, isolation and torture to get what they want.

You can look in any jail in the US and find practices that are engineered to "break down an individual" quite often on the orders of a prosecutor while the individual either has no legal access, limited legal access or a really shitty public defender who may be "equal" to the prosecutor in court but in reality commands on tenth of the resources. The result: innocent people plea bargain...

And gain, in ANY jail in the US you will find torture devices that are just modernized variants of many things used in the middle ages. The beds and chairs that someone can get chained into, concrete slabs with attachment points at the corners for chaining someone to "spread eagle" for hours. Does someone want to tell me that is not torture? The Scientology people had an exhibit of that stuff here in Downtown Portland a couple summers ago before they practically got run out of town by the "anonymous" crowd.

I think that at least some of the news-rumors really-that gets circulated in the movement is meant to keep us in a state of anxiety, even fear. Not saying the rumors are false but You can't think too well in that state.

Meanwhile the enemy keeps employing their long con against the American People in general because we're isolated, ostracized and a lot of us choose to remain in that little box. Which is convenient for the enemy because they can pick us off one by one and the group may not even know, and if they do know, do nothing.

Those that have cast themselves as figureheads like Mark Koernke, Charles Dyer? Look what they've done, are doing, and our... 'response' as a group. Personally I'm ashamed.

The enemy will desire to keep this sweet(for them)set up going as long as possible. The economy will gently collapse until they figure they can win a civil war-probably through use of a network of all the country's surveillance cameras and cheap, easily produced, expendable drones. Already a Predator drone was used on some BS case in North Dakota so I could picture them going after ConSigCor, Texas Resistance, Breacher: lob a bomb or hellfire, blow them to hell and say it was a natural gas explosion or something. And the truth will get swept under the rug and the enemy's bs will be taken at face value... unless their hired murderers opt to take on more dangerous game than pacifist libertarians and pussy 400lb diabetic gun owners on oxygen.

Indefinite Detention Hurts Our National Security and Increases the Risk of Terrorism

Washington’s Blog
December 15, 2011

Top counter-terrorism officials have said that indefinite detention increases terrorism.

A former Admiral and Judge Advocate General says that indefinite detention of Americans hands a big win to the terrorists.

And as Huffington Post notes today, indefinite detention is opposed by our own military and intelligence and police:

FBI Director Robert Mueller just this morning told the Senate that he fears the proposed law will create confusion over who has authority to investigate terrorism cases.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the National Defense Authorization Act will restrain the Executive Branch’s ability to use “all the counterterrorism tools that are now legally available” and “needlessly complicate efforts by frontline law enforcement professionals to collect critical intelligence concerning operations and activities within the United States.”

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has written that it “would introduce unnecessary rigidity at a time when our intelligence, military and law enforcement professionals are working more closely than ever to defend our nation effectively and quickly from terrorist attacks.”

Still, ignoring the advice from his most senior federal military and law enforcement professionals, President Obama is expected to sign the 2012 law, according to his senior advisors.

The concerns aren’t limited to federal officials. Earlier this week the 20,000-member International Association of Chiefs of Police wrote to Congress expressing concern that the law could “undermine the ability of our law enforcement counterterrorism experts, in particular those involved with Joint Terrorism Task Forces, to conduct effective investigations of suspected terrorists.”

A bipartisan group of 26 retired generals and admirals recently wrote that the legislation “both reduces the options available to our Commander-in-Chief to incapacitate terrorists and violates the rule of law” and “would seriously undermine the safety of the American people.”

The U.K. and Germany have said they won’t share intelligence or turn over suspected terrorists to the U.S. if they know they’ll be headed to indefinite military custody.

So not only will the bill allowing indefinite detention of Americans create an overt police state, but it will also make us more vulnerable to terrorism.

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

That's all state law, and other states deal with the situation differently. I think it is right to argue the morality of resistance from a legal standpoint, just to get the religious naysayers off your back over resisting hostile action on the part of the government, but in the larger picture, this is also a matter about possession of the nation.

The right to possession on a nation, any nation, lies in its constitutional makeup. That is what defines whether someone is having a revolution or a counter revolution, or a restorative revolution to an earlier form of government (like re-establishing a monarchy).

I am not sure if acts of resistance would be considered warfare or vigilantism on this, or just plain Chuck Norris style "you fucked with freedom so now I will fuck you up" type stuff.

What I have discussed lately with another patriot on this board is that "indefinite preventive detention" has been practiced at the state level and to a lesser degree at the federal level as a matter of "mental health policy" for a very long time, just the process sidestepped the military and tended to use local resources. It also had a history or faliure when used against organizations since the whole nature of it is geared toward "dangerous individuals". From what I understand, pre-existing mental health preventive detention laws traditionally don't functionally work as well against organizations but historically, it has been used against cults.

One historic note, the case of Charles Manson, if I remember correctly, his originator crimes of conviction called for something shorter than the life sentence that he got, and at every parole hearing, his is rejected usually on the grounds that his further detention prevents further crimes. Some legal rights "purists" would argue for the release of Charles Manson, but most people don't go that far and are happy to see him still locked up and batshit crazy from a combination of his own pre-existing insanity and numerous psych meds that he is fed, by force if he is uncooperative.

The same levels of common sense need to come into play if some of those alleged AL Queda camps turn out to be both real hostile on top of being armed, dangerous, and combining citizen fighters with non-citizen fighters. Current law apparently deals with that to some degree but personally, I am not seeing anything I would write commendations over, sort of like that Muslim guy who joined the Michigan militia, got elected to a position of rank with them, had contact wit the Hutaree militia, and then promptly sicked the feds against the Hutaree...

Yeah, real freedom fighters with that whole scene. Reminds me of the class III crowd and FFL holders here in Oregon who are constantly scouting for names to turn in to their good friends at the BATfag offices.

Our friend Breacher may be right and they might never use The National Defense Authorization Act S. 1867 against many Patriots but they could. The National Defense Authorization Act S. 1867 is pure tyranny and it could start a civil war. Sure they will only use it against Muslim Terrorists in the beginning to get people used to it but then they are likely to start using it against Patriots and anyone else the Obomination in DC doesn’t like.

If Patriots are secretly abducted, never charged, never get a trial, and get locked up for the rest of their life in Guantanammo Bay Cuba like they are Al-Qaeda Muslim Terrorists; then some Patriots are likely to start shooting it out with whoever tries to arrest them since they would have nothing to loose. Next since offense is much more effective than defense other Patriots figuring that their abduction will be next might start making preemptive strikes.

Here are some words of wisdom from the past for anyone in denial who says the National Defense Authorization Act S. 1867 could not be used against Patriots:"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

IYAM, that is pretty much where we are at.

Anyone here who thinks they will get a fair shake in the "Justice" System, is only deluding themselves.

More like Injustice System.

The goal anymore is merely to break us financially, assassinate our character with all the resources of the State obtained through our excessive taxation and then to imprison or kill us. As can be seen from the case of Sgt. Dyer, one can also expect that they will attempt to make our incarceration as miserable as possible.


Fight or Die

Yes, Breacher, our biggest problem isn't the police state itself but the snitch. All those police state dickriders who leap through all the hoops, dot the I's cross the T's, put on the proverbial blackface and go "yassuh boss suh I get you some busts fo you."

Now, the dude wanting to get you or build you a suppressor or a machine gun, or a murder weapon, he's obvious. The not so obvious ones will want you to fill out that FFL, like if he wants you to buy from one of those snitch dealers, or get that registered machine gun or AOW-you get rejected and the BATFags come and bust you and the scumbag gun show owner gets a pat on the head and he can continue his "privleges" awhile longer. Try to tell them their usefullness to the beast will one day be at an end and they don't want to hear it.

Never talk about doing something. Either do or don't.

Just so everyone understands...

Lets be perfectly clear...

If US citizens are no longer afforded any protection under the Geneva convention; then we are not bound to abide by it's rules of war either. I hope those idiots in Washington understand that.

Sir, the rules are. There are not rules. Level of intense violence from the onset of hostilities until completed is required.

Overstating the obvious for most here, and stating the facts for those who just don't understand the rules of engagement.

Leo out

The only rules that truly exist in warfare exist in the minds of those watching on TV or from behind their desk.

I would say rape is not to be tolerated and that families should be left out of it but it appears the govt is more than willing to destroy the families of patriots. That is a profound error of judgment they would be well advised to reconsider.

Other than that, when the gloves come off it is simply time to brawl. Total fucking war.

We are in total agreement. My intentions were not for the innocent but intended for opposition forces and collaborators. Besides, we are so few. Intense brutal violence to the enemy is the only way we can prevail. I am not going to play nice nice with them, be sure of that.

Hence, the rules are, there are not rules. I was taught, that a fight worth fighting is a fight worth winning. If you don't wanna win, don't fight!

Merry Christmas

Leo out

Aw come-on guys. Ya gotta play by the new rules and fight fair.

If we no longer have any right to privacy, nor any right to be secure in our papers, person or effects; then neither do they.

If they can keep us under constant surveillance and monitor our every word and action then the same can be done to them.

If they can maintain lists and databases of information on us, then we can do the same to them.

If they can trespass, break and enter our homes without a warrant, them we don't need one to do the same to them.

If they can indefinitely hold, detain and kidnap our people without formal charges ever being placed against us, and deny our right to face our accusers, have council or a trial by jury, then we can deny them the same "privileges".

If they can assemble "death squads" to eliminate us, then we can do the same to them.

Those people would do well to remember that we will play by the rules of engagement they have established. After all, that's only fair.

ConSigCor
Thank you for the quant way of explaining the rules.
Do onto other as others plan to do onto you.

Right, the playing field is more level than a lot of people think once the game really starts.

And if they come for us one at a time, as they did for Sgt Dyer and the Hutaree, then what?

Everyone has to make their own decisions on that, where their line in the sand is, what they are willing to do, how far they are willing to go with it and who they are willing to do it for.

Personally, for these days, I am limiting myself to the legal defense stuff. I personally don't yet see sufficient levels of public awareness or support for armed resistance to take that sort of or action which would put things on that one way trip past the point of no return. Personally, I think I would have been in more of a position to help those people if I had paid more attention to finishing law school and less on growing the arsenal back in the 1990s when "revolution is just around the corner".

I think it's more important now than it ever has been to get our networking/commo plans in order. We need to be able to network better on a state-to-state basis. I don't think we will be able to rely on the www., or even cells phones for that matter.

Straycat points out something that everyone should be concentrating on.