NP: Alienation and Sedition Act

[Mark Kohut]

Another opinion. 
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/gitmo-law-could-someday-apply-americans

From: Henry M <scuffling at gmail.com>
To: Pynchon Liste <pynchon-l at waste.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: NP: Alienation and Sedition Act


Did you make it page 362-363?

15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.
21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require
22 ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the
1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
2 States.

AsB4,
٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
Henry Mu
http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20



On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

It's on page 359 and the language about who can be detained starts out sounding like it is about terrorists planning acts of terror, but gets very broad and does not limit jurisdiction. This is so far beyond constitutional rights of due process that it amounts to a statement that we are in a state of war with an enemy called terror and that members of that enemy can be defined, detained and tried by the US military.   Kinda like fascism or the system they have in Egypt, also called a military dictatorship.   This is McCain dogshitting on the constitution in case it wasn't eviscerated enough.   Even Obama finds it offensive and says he will veto.
>There's aso a big rape problem in the military, and if I were a woman soldier i would want those parts of this bill looked at by lawyers watching out for their interests.
>
>On Nov 30, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Henry M wrote:
>
>> S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
>> is being attacked by people who, for the most part, haven't read it at
>> all, and also and by firebaggers who are up to their "Dem's are
>> hardly, if at all, better than Repubs so don't vote for them either"
>> tricks.
>>
>> The ACLU, which I practically always agree with, has said “The Senate
>> is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and
>> every future presiden...t — the power to order the military to pick up
>> and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world.
>> The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the
>> military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even
>> within the United States itself.” They, and Sen. Mark Udall cite
>> sections are 1031 and 1032 of the bill.
>>
>> Would someone please actually read the sections in question and then
>> explain to me how these they represent a new threat to Americans, or
>> even to "lawful resident aliens." I'd really appreciate it, 'cause I
>> don't see it!  I really would like to understand.  I mean it!
>>
>> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
>>
>> AsB4,
>> ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
>> Henry Mu
>> http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
>
>