NP: Alienation and Sedition Act

[Henry M]

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/20111130/1fe8f026/attachment.html>