Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: gunsmith on December 29, 2011, 03:33:43 AM
-
As some of you may know, I have been outta the loop due to computer problems, I'm hearing chatter from a few friends about "indefinite imprisonment" law that our Dear Leader has signed.
Is this the patriot act extension? Nothing on the news that I saw, my friends are saying the gov't can jail you now, no trial no time limit. ... Seems like that would be front page news
-
It's a version of the WW2 measures to imprison saboteurs and suchlike. Except for the indefinite war on terraism.
-
And it does or does not apply to American citizens who are not on some foreign "field of battle" but at home in their parents' basement - depending on which brand of foil you used. [tinfoil]
stay safe.
-
Evidently the language is sufficiently vague for anyone to read anything into it. Which means the courts will determine ultimate meaning. Tin foil hats aside, it is bad ju-ju to write laws designed to be clarified by the courts.
-
This is the second political thread that's been started lately. The politics forum is closed until the new year.
-
This is the second political thread that's been started lately. The politics forum is closed until the new year.
Never said we couldn't discuss politics, just can't do it in the Politics forum. [popcorn]
-
I'm moving this to Poly-Ticks, you guys can resume the conversation after the 1st.
Chris
-
fistful
This is the second political thread that's been started lately. The politics forum is closed until the new year.
fistful finked on friend, not fair!
Never said we couldn't discuss politics, just can't do it in the Politics forum. [popcorn]
yeah, what he said! wmenorr = awesome!
-
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=32717.0 (contains links of interest)
I was wrong in that^ older post, it's the 6th Amendment that gets rammed (supposedly), not the 4th.
-
Any more comments on this?
-
(from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...2hr1540enr.pdf) To read this file first you have to have the FREE program Adobe Reader (X, although earlier versions will work too). Click the little binos on the left sidebar. In the box type "section 1022" then click "Search". Then click on the results until you find the one you want.
Section 1022 (b):
---
(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.
---
Now the debate begins with the wording: because of the use of "The requirement to detain... ...does not extend to citizens..." leaving the optional choice to detain available. And why the different wording for lawful resident aliens? Rest assured there is a legalistic reason for it.
-
"The requirement to detain... ...does not extend to citizens..." leaving the optional choice to detain available.
So the Military won't automatically be involved in your detention as a matter of Law, but they can be involved... it's up to Dear Leader? I feel so safe!