This Is Scary!

Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Can you guys not clearly see it says in the text that the limitations to American citizens can be overrided for "matters of national security"?

Pot growing could be considered a "threat to national security"..."harmful drug manufacturing" I can see it being explained as.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
Harrekin said:
Can you guys not clearly see it says in the text that the limitations to American citizens can be overrided for "matters of national security"?

Pot growing could be considered a "threat to national security"..."harmful drug manufacturing" I can see it being explained as.
Click to expand...
ESPECIALLY if Newt gets in office or Obummer stays.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
ESPECIALLY if Newt gets in office or Obummer stays.
Click to expand...
Obama could go either way if reelected I reckon tho, he could either go/stay Anti-Everything or he could finally deliver on his "yes we can" and "I like pot" cos he has no fear of seeking reelection after it...then again I may just have too much faith in people ;)
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Unless you fall under this category, you have nothing to worry about:

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

    • (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
  • (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
Additionally,

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

  • (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
And...

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

    • (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.
    • (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
Does any of this make sense?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:5:./temp/~c112r6Mbna:e578060:
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Can you guys not clearly see it says in the text that the limitations to American citizens can be overrided for "matters of national security"?

Pot growing could be considered a "threat to national security"..."harmful drug manufacturing" I can see it being explained as.
Click to expand...
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1)

Paragraph 1 reads:

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
The Ruiner said:
Unless you fall under this category, you have nothing to worry about:

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

    • (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
  • (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
Additionally,

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

  • (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
And...

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

    • (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.
    • (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
Does any of this make sense?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:5:./temp/~c112r6Mbna:e578060:
Click to expand...
And the requirements for "suspicion" were, at least initially VERY vague. Such as if one has more than 7 days worth of food or missing fingers.

Do you think that this was written to help us stay free?
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
And the requirements for "suspicion" were, at least initially VERY vague. Such as if one has more than 7 days worth of food or missing fingers.

Do you think that this was written to help us stay free?
Click to expand...
Is that in the text of the bill, or are you just making that up?

I think the bill was written so that people like Al-Alwaki can't plot attacks against the US, or our allies, and be protected by citizenship...How that's a bad thing is beyond me...

If you aren't harboring Al-Qaeda, providing material support, or plotting attacks while living OUTSIDE the US, you have nothing to worry about. It's really that simple.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
The Ruiner said:
Is that in the text of the bill, or are you just making that up?

I think the bill was written so that people like Al-Alwaki can't plot attacks against the US, or our allies, and be protected by citizenship...How that's a bad thing is beyond me...

If you aren't harboring Al-Qaeda, providing material support, or plotting attacks while living OUTSIDE the US, you have nothing to worry about. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...
i saw it on C-SPAN during the Senate hearings.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
ESPECIALLY if Newt gets in office or Obummer stays.
Click to expand...
In the lesser of two evils category I HAVE to choose Obama.

I am disgusted (not out of the usual psychotic behavior of the Republican party) that Newt is getting this much attention. He is what would happen if G.W. and his VP had a baby.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
And you realise if you were to try stop a member of the military from searching your house "looking for terrorists" you could be detained for doing so? It gives them permission to act as if your permenantly at war with everyone domestically and foreign.

But just accept it if you want, but we wouldn't give our Government such general sweeping powers tho.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
And you realise if you were to try stop a member of the military from searching your house "looking for terrorists" you could be detained for doing so? It gives them permission to act as if your permenantly at war with everyone domestically and foreign.

But just accept it if you want, but we wouldn't give our Government such general sweeping powers tho.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, not at all...You are dead wrong.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
The Ruiner said:
The bill doesn't even include those words, so it's pointless to bring them into a discussion concerning the ACTUAL bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:5:./temp/~c112r6Mbna:e578060:
Click to expand...
Then i would be inclined to believe that he was likely applying previously defined recognized signs of terrorist activity and applying them here to point out how vague the language is.

They want to hold ANYONE for ALLEGED anything indefinitely and yeah, i got a problem with that.
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
Then i would be inclined to believe that he was likely applying previously defined recognized signs of terrorist activity and applying them here to point out how vague the language is.

They want to hold ANYONE for ALLEGED anything indefinitely and yeah, i got a problem with that.
Click to expand...
They don't exist in the bill, so why be against the bill that isn't part of the problem? Be against other legislation, not this bill which has nothing to do with statements made by those in the vid you linked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top