NP: Alienation and Sedition Act

[Joseph Tracy]

This  article in Mother Jones is saying exactly what I said * after reading 362-363
I think there is a difference in the effect of this legislation, though, from the Hamdi -Rumsfeld  decision, because this essentially requires the army to treat America as part of its jurisdiction in the so called war on terror.  The whole thing is insane because behind all the BS is a small criminal organization that has been driven out of several countries and should be addressed not as a war but an international policing matter. There is no nation to be at war with and wars on tactics are absurd, particularly when the chief tactic is the violent and indiscriminate terror which is theoretically opposed.
We are looking more and more like the military muti-national corporate empire foreseen in GR.  


I sent this earlier but accidentally sent it to myself
On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Joseph Tracy wrote:

> line 17 page 362 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
> 
> *The language here is tricky because the military is not "required" to detain such a detainee in military custody, but it does not prohibit it either.  And there is no provision by which a citizen can demand a trial by jury, and the right to non military legal defense.
On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:02 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:

> 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
>> 
>>