NP: Alienation and Sedition Act?

[Joseph Tracy]

I did read the relevant parts of the bill and explained the loophole that I saw, which was also identified by Mother Jones. The writers of this part of the bill ( McCain Levin) and other figures in the law-making body of the US insist on this interpretation. It's really a matter of the logic of the english language. Saying an action is "not required" is not at all the same as saying an action is precluded. 

Why do you think Obama threatened to veto it?  Why does Panetta and  many military people oppose it, why does the FBI oppose it? 

It seems like you are so focused on one minor political argument that you are unwilling to see the threat to the constitution and the historic wisdom of a clear separation of the military from domestic policing responsibilities.


On Dec 1, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Henry M wrote:

> Read the friggin' bill, goddamn it!  Why refer to what people have to say about it when you can see what it actually says for yourself?
> 
> AsB4,
> ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
> Henry Mu
> http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> Anders also noted that Sen. Lindsey Graham, a backer of the bill, has said multiple times on the Senate floor, including on Tuesday, that American citizens should be put into military detention without a lawyer.
> 
> Here’s what Sen. Graham said in the Senate on Nov. 17:
> 
> “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
> Anders is troubled by an additional aspect of Section 1031—the part that mentions transferring someone “to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”
> 
> The implication, says Anders, is that “if you’re an American citizen and were born somewhere else, you can be sent to the country where you were born, which you fled, which is out to persecute you.”
> 
> 
>  in other questions
> Sen. Paul: “My question would be under the provisions would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely.”
> 
> Sen. McCain: “I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat.”
> On Nov 30, 2011, at 10:58 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 president — 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
> 
>