A-R wrote:When someone other than Alex Jones reports it I'll be more likely to a) believe it and b) be worried about it.
srothstein wrote:The article refers to section 1031 as the bad section. That section has been removed already.
Heartland Patriot wrote:To think I ALMOST got taken by the left on this one...well, fool me once, shame on you, as the saying goes. The bill actually says the OPPOSITE as far as I can tell by READING THE ACTUAL TEXT. The bill can be found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf The important text in Section 1032 reads thus: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." And it further says that the same applies to LEGAL ALIEN RESIDENTS. So, it seems as if Senator Rand Paul also got taken on this one...I should have known it was some kind of underhanded thing going on if Feinstein (TAM, please forgive me!) was involved...and it seems as if the REAL motivation is to hold up the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which funds our military. I simply cannot convey in words how sick this whole darned thing makes me, and how ticked at myself that I almost believed it.
srothstein wrote:I have to apologize. I did finally find section 1031 and it is still there. But it is truly a false scare as HP posted. In addition to not applying to citizen's, sec. 1031 makes it clear that it only applies to people covered under the authorization to use the military in response to the 9/11/01 attacks.
VMI77 wrote:Doesn't look like that's true to me --there are two categories of "covered persons." One applies to people covered under the authorization to use the military in response to the 9/11 attacks. The other, paragraph 2, applies to people who have supported associated forces or committed a "belligerent" act against the US or it's coalition partners. Supported could mean giving money to a charity, that unbeknownst to the contributor, funnels money to one of those "associated" forces, something it is entirely possible to do without the knowledge or intent of aiding such forces. Posting inflammatory comments on the internet could be construed as a "belligerent" act.
Also, where does it say the law doesn't "apply" to US citizens? It says the "requirement" to detain doesn't extend to US citizens, which merely seems to make such detention discretionary. Nowhere does it say such detention is prohibited. If the intention is really to exclude US citizens, why doesn't the language say so in no uncertain terms?
The other significant element here is that detention comes without any presentation of evidence, since there is no trial; nor is there any limit on the length of detention, since we all know that the WOT is never going to end. So essentially, the law allows people to be placed in prison, indefinitely, on nothing more than an allegation (and no doubt, the claim will be made that there is evidence, but it's secret and can't be disclosed). Finally, I will point out that the Constitution doesn't grant the right to trial only to "citizens" --it says "persons."
Users browsing this forum: stroo and 1 guest