Jump to content

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?!


OmegaWave

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If this law goes into effect i'm going to sue the United States Congress all the way up to the Supreme Court

They'd have to be completely retarded to let this slide


DON'T WORRY YET GUISE, WE HAVE THIS SCRAP OF PAPER WRITTEN BY DEAD GUYS TO SAVE ME FROM IMMINENT DOOM

No, but seriously

I will appeal all the way up until the supreme court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All those who think this law is bad. Go read over the damn law itself, don't take the page at how it sums up the law. It completely reads it WRONG.
And you're the reason people want to leave the United States, you can't even read basic legal jargon let alone actually check source pages (and when the site uses a freaking .GOV page you can guarantee the quality).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Icyblue' timestamp='1323136344' post='5689739']
And [b]you're the reason people want to leave[/b] the United States, you [b]can't even read basic legal jargon[/b] let alone actually check source pages (and when the site uses a freaking .GOV page you can guarantee the quality).
[/quote]

Somehow I doubt that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1323141749' post='5689988']
Somehow I doubt that...
[/quote]

Oh let me vent and call them on their relentless name calling. I still stand by my point and say that those who are against this have not read the actual bill itself :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1322945248' post='5683758'] Actually, that might be a good idea. Although it may be a bit too paranoid, being a Muslim would make you an easy target for racial/religious profiling. [/quote]

that's what i was implying =/ but maybe that sad emoticon would imply otherwise...

[quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1322954965' post='5684138']
Canada actually sounds nice. I've heard their health-care is good.
[/quote]

FREE health care, actually. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are all idiots. At least read over [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012%22"]the damn Wikipedia article.[/url] The bill was passed to detain terrorism suspects on American soil. It's keeping you safe. If you're a strawman political enough to really think that the government's going to use this to IMPRISON JO0!!1, then leave the country. We don't need Chicken Littles scrambling everywhere. >:I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because there definitely isn't a judicial system to fairly try individuals suspect of terrorist activity. Guantanamo was/is protested for the same reasons - no fair trial, no chance to defend themselves, and little hope of escape. A similar tactic was used during WW2 against Japanese citizens for fear of dissent. Though cases will be much smaller and less obvious examples of ethnic discrimination, Middle Easterners with contrary beliefs will likely suffer a few unjust arrests. That was happening even before, only now it will be more legally-approved(whether the bill goes against constitutional rights or not). This won't be used to purge the country and start the Obama Youth regime, or whatever people here panicked over, but it's a clear centralizing, power-grabbing violation of rights that's pretty sickening to watch pass through the political system so easily. Way to make the tinfoil hatters posting before look bright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='~Coolio~' timestamp='1323231949' post='5692491']
Because there definitely isn't a judicial system to fairly try individuals suspect of terrorist activity. Guantanamo was/is protested for the same reasons - [b]no fair trial, no chance to defend themselves[/b], and little hope of escape. A similar tactic was used during WW2 against Japanese citizens for fear of dissent. Though cases will be much smaller and less obvious examples of ethnic discrimination, Middle Easterners with contrary beliefs [b]will likely suffer a few unjust arrests[/b]. That was happening even before, only now it will be more legally-approved(whether the bill goes against constitutional rights or not). This won't be used to purge the country and start the Obama Youth regime, or whatever people here panicked over, but it's a clear centralizing, power-grabbing violation of rights that's pretty sickening to watch pass through the political system so easily. Way to make the tinfoil hatters posting before look bright.
[/quote]


Anyone suspected of terrorism would be detained

With that kind of power there will more than "a few"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[CODE]
(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.
[/CODE]
So if I'm reading it right, that part already says they need evidence. Check 1 working good.
[CODE]
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
[/CODE]
Section B here is a bit iffy, I'll give you that; still relatively checks out. But then we also have the following; in SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. Subsection B (or whatever it's called).

[CODE]
(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.
[/CODE]

Again, I ask. How does this apply to any degree most of you appear to be saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...