Thread: This is what you get, America, for submitting to the globalists.

1. In the wikipedia paragraph I posted of posse comitatus exceptions, it states that national guard troops may be used to enforce the law under the command of the governor. http://readme.readmedia.com/news/sho...Meeting/956778. Read the bottom paragraph. Kind of an obscure source, but it's better than the one you've got negating it. It is not a blatant violation of U.S. law, nor is it a violation of U.S. law.

2. Peeps keep talking about cops beating people up and arresting people etc. Provide an instance with evidence of something like this happening at G-20, since that seems to be the subject of this conversation.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

2. Peeps keep talking about cops beating people up and arresting people etc. Provide an instance with evidence of something like this happening at G-20, since that seems to be the subject of this conversation.

I did provide, but most chose to ignore. I provided links to the two videos where the college kids were tear gassed on their own campus. No they were not rioting. There's another video of the college kids getting hemmed up against a wall and arrested. No they also weren't rioting.

Obama is sending MORE troops to Iraq. There goes your change

CDC drafts Isolation Order for H1N1.

http://www.infowars.com/cdc-drafts-i...rder-for-h1n1/

With that Isolation Order, officials can send you to a quarantine, even if you are just "suspected" of having the swine flu.

Also, if you don't get the government mandated health care plan, you could face jail time and a fine.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/09...S.html?showall

I hope people finally start to open their eyes.

Originally Posted by Xei

Please stop using fallacies, it's very irritating. We're talking about the legal status of riot police. Obviously riot police are not legally employed to 'beat up random people'.

I don't know what incident you're talking about anyway, you didn't bother to specify.

thats the incident I speak of, cops abusing power purposefully against NON violent passer bys and some protesters.

The thing which angers me is that they baton and gas people who weren't even protesting anything, they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrroooooong time.


If this video doesn't shock you, you are NOT A HUMAN BEING, you must have no compassion if this video does not phase you.


I guess desensitization through television had its purpose for the government, to make people numb to this kind of brutality, as if its a normal thing which isn't illegal, immoral.

Yeah, seriously if i had to list all the police/military abuse cases in the US this page would be so long you couldnt even click on the scroll thing

I guess hercuflea, that xei does not believe cops have ever violated their sacred oath to the constitution of the united states of america.

:/

To be honest I don't know or particularly care what that oath is but obviously I'm not ignorant of the concept of police corruption and brutality.

I have no idea what was going on in that video but it's hardly Tienanmen square is it?

no its not tienamen square but to me they crossed the fucking line that night, and they will regret it when america rises up and kicks the globalists asses.

Just because it's "not Tienanmen Square" doesn't make it ok.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

I did provide, but most chose to ignore. I provided links to the two videos where the college kids were tear gassed on their own campus. No they were not rioting. There's another video of the college kids getting hemmed up against a wall and arrested. No they also weren't rioting.

What I meant by that was giving evidence of police misconduct. Those videos are not evidence as they do not show the full context of the situation.

Originally Posted by guerilla

no its not tienamen square but to me they crossed the fucking line that night, and they will regret it when america rises up and kicks the globalists asses.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Just because it's "not Tienanmen Square" doesn't make it ok.

Both of you see above. If you can provide evidence of police misconduct, I'd be inclined to agree. If not, then all you're doing here is bantering about law enforcement effectively and successfully completing its purpose.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Obama is sending MORE troops to Iraq. There goes your change

Erm... you mean Afghanistan, right?

What legitimate reason would police has for using tear gas on people who are not being violent in anyway at all? Best case, is that its an accident, and that is hardly a good thing that they are using gas on such a wide scale that they hit people by mistake.

Originally Posted by Alric

What legitimate reason would police has for using tear gas on people who are not being violent in anyway at all? Best case, is that its an accident, and that is hardly a good thing that they are using gas on such a wide scale that they hit people by mistake.

The point is to give the entire context of the situation. You say the people were not being violent, but you cannot make such a judgment from the videos HardWired provided.

The legitimate reason to use tear gas against people who were not being violent is to protect the VIPs whose presence the peaceful people were protesting. Read somewhere that they were trying to march down to the site of the G-20 summit. Seems logical to keep them away from that location if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Erm... you mean Afghanistan, right?

actually, he is sending 30-40 thousand to afghanistan.

He is sending 50,000 contractors though to iraq...so we still have the same number of humans there as under the bush admin.

No change in foreign policy.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think you'll find riot police are used to protect citizens, not 'against citizens'.

The article was not about riot police, it was about the national guard. We are talking about the military being used to police citizens, which is illegal in this country.

Correct, posse comitatus act of 1878 prohibits the national guard, air force, marines, army and other military or paramilitary from operating with law enforcement or doing law enforcement duties themselves such as traffic control, checkpoints, arrests...etc

This was enacted right after the civil war and was an agreement to prevent future civil wars from presidents placing soldiers around the nation or amassing near state borders like the south, it was basically a peace agreement between the slave owners and non slave owners, and it still applies today. (well, not really because the government is spitting on it everyday by placing 500,000 soldiers in the streets of the entire nation, 500 thousand troops were deployed here in October of 2008 by the bush administration, and the policy continues to this day regardless of administration changes)

The other reason for it, is to prevent presidents or governors from using military to suppress dissent or peaceful citizens.

Julius Caesar did such a thing, which destroyed the republic of rome, and transformed it into an empire.

Remember, we are (were) a Republic, we are and have become a militaristic empire since the days of vietnam or even before some say.


This is also why we have a right to bear arms, to protect America from its government, or other foreign or domestic threats.

OMG lol check this new video out i just spotted on youtube.

These 3 goons in black bandanas sure stick out like a sore thumb among peaceful protesters, do they really think they can go undercover as anarchists and start a riot amongst peaceful non violent citizens?

these are undercover cops, reguardless of evidence, this tape is evidence enough to understand that alot of these broken windows were probably other undercover snakes trying to de-rail the protest movement, to discredit and make them look violent.

EPIC FAIL! lol cops lose, we win

Yes you can, no one in the video was being violent which proves, no one in the video was being violent and yet they still got hit. I am not sure how much more proof you need than video evidence.

That doesn't make any sense though. If their not being violent, then how are they a threat to the people there? Even if they march down to them? What are they going to do, curse at them? Well that is why they got freedom of speech.

^ It's kind of like the mentality that...oooohhh we simple citizens cannot enter into the Forbidden City, the Emperor is a divine being and if we even look at him we will die!! OOOOOOHH NOOOOOOO STAY AWAY FROM THE FORBIDDEN AREA!

And LOL guerilla those guys are so retarded, they fail. They think they can mimic anarchists but they do not even fit the typical anarchist description. I have never seen a single anarchist with a body build like that, and all three of them are huge guys with huge arms. And everyone around them saw through their silly little childish disguise. What a bunch of pigs. F the police is right.

Oh my god. I just came across this video. It's absolutely sick. I almost had a tear come to my eyes when i saw it. If you live in america, youre living in the USSR. This is what we get for trusting the government.

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/th...-take-a-trophy

The next thing you know they'll be putting a gun to his head and shoving him into a pit.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The article was not about riot police, it was about the national guard. We are talking about the military being used to police citizens, which is illegal in this country.

Originally Posted by guerilla

Correct, posse comitatus act of 1878 prohibits the national guard, air force, marines, army and other military or paramilitary from operating with law enforcement or doing law enforcement duties themselves such as traffic control, checkpoints, arrests...etc

This was enacted right after the civil war and was an agreement to prevent future civil wars from presidents placing soldiers around the nation or amassing near state borders like the south, it was basically a peace agreement between the slave owners and non slave owners, and it still applies today. (well, not really because the government is spitting on it everyday by placing 500,000 soldiers in the streets of the entire nation, 500 thousand troops were deployed here in October of 2008 by the bush administration, and the policy continues to this day regardless of administration changes)

The other reason for it, is to prevent presidents or governors from using military to suppress dissent or peaceful citizens.

Julius Caesar did such a thing, which destroyed the republic of rome, and transformed it into an empire.

Remember, we are (were) a Republic, we are and have become a militaristic empire since the days of vietnam or even before some say.


This is also why we have a right to bear arms, to protect America from its government, or other foreign or domestic threats.

You guys are either blind or ignoring my posts. Since most blind people don't post in internet forums, I'm going to assume you are ignoring my posts.

Twice I posted information that negates both your statements (and the topic of the thread) that using national guard forces to enforce laws is not prohibited so long as they are under command of the governor.

Since you guys seem to know so much about what the Posse Comitatus disallows, I'm going to assume you've read it. I have not read it. Since you have nothing to fear because you've correctly interpreted the Act, I request that you link me to where I may read it seeing as I cannot find it myself. Surely the act itself will negate what I've said... so long as you have read it and interpreted it correctly.

Originally Posted by guerilla

OMG lol check this new video out i just spotted on youtube.

These 3 goons in black bandanas sure stick out like a sore thumb among peaceful protesters, do they really think they can go undercover as anarchists and start a riot amongst peaceful non violent citizens?

these are undercover cops, reguardless of evidence, this tape is evidence enough to understand that alot of these broken windows were probably other undercover snakes trying to de-rail the protest movement, to discredit and make them look violent.

EPIC FAIL! lol cops lose, we win

Three guys standing around with covered faces doesn't prove anything. You do not have the evidence to make the assumption that those men were officers. Even if they were officers, you have no evidence to support any intent of anything. Any conclusion you make would be nothing short of paranoid assumption.

Originally Posted by Alric

Yes you can, no one in the video was being violent which proves, no one in the video was being violent and yet they still got hit. I am not sure how much more proof you need than video evidence.

That doesn't make any sense though. If their not being violent, then how are they a threat to the people there? Even if they march down to them? What are they going to do, curse at them? Well that is why they got freedom of speech.

The protesters were attempting to march down to the G20 summit. They did not have a permit to march and therefore were doing something wrong. What you fail to understand is that it is also the duty of the police to prevent dangerous situations. Whether you like it or not, a bunch of protesters near a meeting of the most powerful nations, some potentially with bad intentions, creates a dangerous situation. More so than regular protests because the targets are so sensitive and numerous.

Not only that, but from looking at that video, I'd say the protesters were quite rowdy.

Not only that, but they got teargassed, not gunned down. The only reason they got teargassed is because they attempted to approach the G-20 summit.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Oh my god. I just came across this video. It's absolutely sick. I almost had a tear come to my eyes when i saw it. If you live in america, youre living in the USSR. This is what we get for trusting the government.

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/th...-take-a-trophy

The next thing you know they'll be putting a gun to his head and shoving him into a pit.

Here we go with the USSR comparisons...

Again, this doesn't prove anything. The video is a mere 26 seconds. It doesn't show why he was in the position he was in, it only shows that he was. That video is out of context.

Even if it is correct (and I don't think it is, but I can't say for sure), your conclusion is extremely biased and irrational. You do not have the evidence to make such assumptions. If you do, then prove me wrong. And if you do, you should have posted it along with the video.

No they weren't. The video was of people in a near by building. If they are inside the building, they obviously weren't marching any where, thus had no reason to have tear gas shot at them. Which was the entire problem, that police never show any kind of restraint and hit everyone, doing far more harm to innocent people than anything they prevent.

Originally Posted by Alric

No they weren't. The video was of people in a near by building. If they are inside the building, they obviously weren't marching any where, thus had no reason to have tear gas shot at them. Which was the entire problem, that police never show any kind of restraint and hit everyone, doing far more harm to innocent people than anything they prevent.

Before we continue: What video are you talking about?

um, who ever said you need a permit to peacefully assemble.

go read the first amendment, it specifically states you have the right to freely and peacefully assemble to protest the government WITHOUT A STINKING PERMIT.

Also, I will try to find the posse comitatus scripture, which to my knowledge also prohibits national guard for police duty.

The only thing national guardsmen should be doing is guarding the nation, not arresting people or protest control, or traffic duty.

And plz don't tell me that giving speeding tickets is guarding the nation.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

They did not have a permit to march and therefore were doing something wrong.

I guess that's in the eye of the beholder dude...I don't know how to convince you that these people are marching against the behemoth of the G20, whose leaders are literally running their countries into the ground. Not having a permit seems like a silly distraction from the actual issues of the meeting between the leaders of 85% of the world's GDP.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Here we go with the USSR comparisons...

Again, this doesn't prove anything. The video is a mere 26 seconds. It doesn't show why he was in the position he was in, it only shows that he was. That video is out of context.

Even if it is correct (and I don't think it is, but I can't say for sure), your conclusion is extremely biased and irrational. You do not have the evidence to make such assumptions. If you do, then prove me wrong. And if you do, you should have posted it along with the video.

I don't even know what more evidence you could possibly want. I showed that video because those cops are obviously on a power trip, shoving a person whose in custody onto his knees and taking a group photo like its Disneyland or something; the destruction of my country and everything it used to stand for. And hell yes I'm biased, what do you think i'm freaking Jim Lehrer or something, prancing around in a tutu saying that the government means well and that's all that matters, when in fact they're driving this nation into collapse?

herc, one day when black eagle witnesses police brutality himself, or is a victim of it, then he will get it.

Most cops are corrupt by now, only a few believe in 'keeping the peace'