This bill also authorizes an Internet offensive and online Pentagon takeover under the pretext of cybersecurity and stopping online piracy. Can't believe folks do not have a problem with this..

(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.

 

 

How is this subsection supposed to be interpreted in light of the rest of Section 1031?

 

In Section 1032 subsection (b) says this:

 

(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 detail 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.

 

 

It reads as if US Citizens are excluded from this and are still under the existing laws of our land. Am I reading it wrong?

No answers?

(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.

 

 

How is this subsection supposed to be interpreted in light of the rest of Section 1031?

 

In Section 1032 subsection (b) says this:

 

(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 detail 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.

 

 

It reads as if US Citizens are excluded from this and are still under the existing laws of our land. Am I reading it wrong?

I'm reading it the same way so if your reading it wrong so am I.

I'm reading it the same way so if your reading it wrong so am I.

 

I'd heard about this before, and was actually looking it up when the post was made. Figured I'd read what it said for myself.

 

There is a lot of wording in these things, so I understand that I may not see the big picture from a strictly legal perspective. That is why I posed the question. It reads as if US Citizens are excluded. Is that truly the case? Or, is there some clever legal wording that would allow that statement to be superseded. Just curious.

Wow!! Can't believe Clyde's not jumping in to defend Obama on this.............. Yet.

 

I'm 100% consistent on this issue. Always have been. I won't defend this just like I did not defend assassinations of US citizens and just like I did not defend President Bush authorizing the Patriot Act.

 

My guess is that some in here have not been as consistent in this area as me.

This seems to indicate that the original premise in this thread is incorrect.

 

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/confused-about-ndaa-and-detention-provision

Here is the link that the previous link is based upon.

 

Cammando is not going to be happy as it doesn't fit his narrative.

 

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

Here is the link that the previous link is based upon.

 

Cammando is not going to be happy as it doesn't fit his narrative.

 

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

According to the bloggers interpretation of the bill, although I don't which version of the bill he is going by, the bill does not foreclose the possibility of indefinite detention. It basicly kicks the can down the road to the courts. Could not find where the blogger included other parts of the bill giving the pentagon wide range in shutting down the internet and the president broader powers on imposing marshal law,etc. The final version Obama signed should be online soon. I'm sure both right and left wing bloggers will provide us with plenty of interpretations...

According to the bloggers interpretation of the bill, although I don't which version of the bill he is going by, the bill does not foreclose the possibility of indefinite detention. It basicly kicks the can down the road to the courts. Could not find where the blogger included other parts of the bill giving the pentagon wide range in shutting down the internet and the president broader powers on imposing marshal law,etc. The final version Obama signed should be online soon. I'm sure both right and left wing bloggers will provide us with plenty of interpretations...

 

The ruling appears to say "let's wait and see" since the courts have given different answers recently. In other words, there is nothing new in regards to citizens being detained by the military. If you read the links I posted one of them theorizes that this bill will make it harder for the President to shut down GTMO.

Looks like it will give Obama an out on another campaign promise since the bill was veto proof. Still plenty of concerns on the other parts of the bill the blogger didn't include...

Looks like it will give Obama an out on another campaign promise since the bill was veto proof. Still plenty of concerns on the other parts of the bill the blogger didn't include...

 

Such as?

Looks like it will give Obama an out on another campaign promise since the bill was veto proof. Still plenty of concerns on the other parts of the bill the blogger didn't include...

 

Did you blast President Bush when he decided that eavesdropping on US citizens was prudent all in the name of the war on terror?

I was until certain language was included in the bill that limited it to terrorism only. In other words, if they heard you discussing another crime other than terrorism. That evidence could not be used against you in court... I had more problems with other parts of that bill than the wire taps.

I was until certain language was included in the bill that limited it to terrorism only. In other words, if they heard you discussing another crime other than terrorism. That evidence could not be used against you in court... I had more problems with other parts of that bill than the wire taps.

 

Then you're not for the US Constitution. Can't have it both ways.