Posted on 11/28/2011 12:08:43 PM PST by opentalk
The language used applying to U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens is only referring to SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
Nothing is stated exempting U.S. citizens from detainment in SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
In addition the language used for U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens under SEC. 1032 says: “...THE REQUIREMENT TO DETAIN...” Meaning they may if they choose to, just not required.
Where is the clear language that U.S. citizens are exempt from being policed by the U.S. Military?
...But why did we take out the language Senator Levin wanted me to put in about an American citizen could not be held indefinitely if caught in the homeland? The administration asked us to do that.
Thanks for posting. This is big.
When there was a push back to Obama's Libyan war, by-passing Congress, McCain with Kerry went on the news circuit to sell it.
They may not can just nullify Constitutional gurantees just by passing a bill, but they are doing a damn good job of it.
Don't belive it? Walk down a street in New York City. Boston, MA carrying a rifle or have a pistol strapped around your waste. The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads,"....The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" If you get a chance before they fill you full of lead, try reciting that to the cops and watch their response. Or, if you are not a part of the occupy crowd, get a group together and say that you are going to assemble and camp out in a city park, a/l/a the occupy crowd. See how far that gets you, probably to the city or county jail. On the other hand, the occupy crowdd does as they please without any interferrence from the police. Why? The occupy crowd are a protected arm of obama and the Democrat Party and the city authorties are under orders from washing D.C. to not only interfere with them, but, prevent anyone else from interrfering with them.
A social security number was never to be used as identifiacation either.
Sliding down the slippery slope...
I agree.
Obama’s National Civilian Security Force.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&feature=related
I’m stunned ..!!!
I remember the dems having fits over the Patriot Act .. and this sounds to me like it’s much, much worse than that.
This is very scary stuff.
Does anybody have a clue what they’re really planning to do with this “law”.
Coma Tata = comitatus?
LOL - you agreed to it. At least, it's legal for the government to presume you agreed to it, and then act on your agreement to enforce it against you. Oh, and then they don't have to tell you that this is what they presumed against you. And court? If you step into a Federal court you are also presumed to agreeing to its administrative jurisdiction, under which it can presume you agreed to anything the government does. And no, it doesn't have to admit these presumptions to you, according to its own rules.
It's a big bad world out there, grasshopper.
Lindsey Graham is THE PROBLEM, however the bill does not read the way he’s talking. AIDS?
Snopes forum: http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?p=1562515
Snopes site: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/ndaa.asp
Here is the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:
Okay, this has convinced me. This thing is a problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.