NP: Alienation and Sedition Act

[Henry M]

The important word here is "Someday."  The bill would have to be amended to
do so, and that would require either a Republican POTUS or congressional
super-majority, 'cause Obama would veto it.

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


On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> 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
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20111201/70d5f8f4/attachment.html>