There's been a lot of controversy in the non-mainstream media concerning the latest iteration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, specifically the provisions of Senate Bill 1867 (Indefinite Detention). The law was passed by the full congress after several modifications concerning detention of enemy combatants. Without a full reading of the full statute, I too was alarmed, especially after it was passed with so little fanfare. However, this controversy appears to be much ado about nothing. A closer examination reveals that this is effectively a modification of the orginial Authorization to Use Military Force that was passed on September 18, 2011, in the aftermath of the 9-11 Attacks. The language of the statute deals directly with al Qaeda and Tale-ban members/associates. There appears to be nothing in the statute to expand it's applicability to members of FreeRepublic.com, RedState.com or other right thinking sites. While there certainly is a potential for abuse, as we have witnessed with the Patriot Act on numerous occasions, on its face this law doesn't appear to be the final death knell to the US Constitution.Just don't brandish a slice of pizza that has bites out of it so that it resembles the silhouette of a gun.
I’m no lawyer, nor do I hire people to interpret these things, but I have been reading it for 2 days. My eyes are about to bleed.
I’ve performed about 20 careful cross-references in that time, and the whole thing confuses the hell out of me.
What I find disturbing (This is not the first time this has happened) is how the government can, and does, sign into LAW that suppliers to the government (Boeing, for instance) CAN NOT charge them more, and must fulfill contracts (Which are already lowest-bidder) out of their own pocket. I would be pissed if my client passed a law to protect himself, instead of just shopping elsewhere or accepting reasonable expectations.